The sportswriters of America have failed. It’s been more than a week since “The Decision” and “Miami Thrice” has been the most creative nickname for the Heat’s new big three. Since “Miami Thrice” is lame to begin with, it’s not even worth discussing how the pun isn’t relevant to anyone under the age of thirty. My personal favorite nickname is “The SuperFriends” because it invokes the twin thoughts of a group of superheroes and a group of teenage girls who make scrapbooks for each other and assign a rhyming and/or alliterative moniker to their group of friends. LeBron (Superman), Wade (Batman) and Bosh (Robin) probably prefer the superhero comparison. I much prefer the scrapbooking option because Mike Miller (Wonder Woman?) would be the fourth girl who somehow receives a scrapbook despite riding the coattails of her far cooler friends. No matter that the other girls have to search twice as hard for pictures that include all four girls instead of just the “Terrific/Tempestuous/Talented/Tasty/Tan/Tremendous/Tittilicious Three.” BFFs! Either way, both of these comparisons will continue to hit too close to home until Miller decides to cut his hair.
Considering the backlash still emanating from LeBron’s Decision, the positive nature of most of the offered nicknames has been surprising. Why so positive? Why “The SuperFriends” when “The Legion of Doom” is far more appropriate? Hmmm…”The Legion of Doom”…interesting. After his very public murder of the city of Cleveland, it’s apparent that LeBron James is more Bizarro than Superman. Mike Miller fits in perfectly as Cheetah until someone takes scissors to his aforementioned haircut. Joel Anthony is Gorilla Grodd. Who? Exactly. And the man behind the plan? Is that Pat Riley or the real life Lex Luthor? Riley has the whole masterminding a diabolically genius plan thing down but the next step toward Lex may prove more difficult. Riles will have to give up that head of luscious, margarine-soaked hair. That picture is deceiving but have no fear, the BP oil spill only appears to have made its way inland and into Riley’s Miami residence.
Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh are conspicuously absent from this proposed Legion. The reasons are threefold and thus an excuse to eschew any lame attempt at paragraph structure. Bullet-time!
-Their exclusion is a punishment for not announcing their respective free agency decisions in a painfully long, drawn-out, artificial hour-long live show on ESPN. A missed opportunity for some publicity, fellas. And publicity has clearly been the missing element in the 2010 NBA Free Agency Saga.*
-There is no case for including a velociraptor in the Legion of Doom. None. Stan Lee would roll over in his grave. And he wasn't even involved in "The SuperFriends." Also, Mr. Lee is apparently still alive. 87 years and counting! Thanks, Wikipedia.
-Even after factoring in a series of wild accusations, multiple injuries, a blatant disregard for the NBA traveling rule, an ongoing messy divorce and the recruitment of two fellow superstars to form the most hated (and soon to be loved) NBA team of the past decade/eternity, it's very difficult to cast Dwyane Wade as a villain. Dude is awesome. Go Flash.
*perfectly hyped to death for two years by ESPN and sponsored by the University of Phoenix and Bing
Remember the month of July 2010 at the 2011 All-Star break. Miami will be on their way to the number one seed in a competitive Eastern Conference by playing a wonderful, aesthetically pleasing brand of basketball. The press will be writing fawning articles over LeBron James' unselfishness and the gritty sacrifices of Mike Miller and Udonis Haslem. Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh will be thriving with teammates 47 times better than the management of the 2009-10 Heat and Raptors provided, respectively. Expectations will only be tempered by the requisite quotes from players declaring that "It ain't no thing without that ring." Kobe Bryant rehabilitated his image in six short months. LeBron and the Miami Heat will do the same. Barring injury, they will be a regular season juggernaut. And it will be beautiful, must-see TV.
Watch Miami's upcoming pursuit of the 2011 Larry O'Brien trophy because James, Wade and Bosh have already made history even before stepping onto the court together. Respect them if they seamlessly merge their talents together in forming an NBA champion. But remember to hate them. The Miami Heat are the Legion of Doom, threatening to destroy the NBA's competitive balance for the next decade. The only hope is that Superman and his SuperFriends are there to save the world. Again.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Land of the Free in the Home of the Vuvuzelas
What's the greatest sports movie of all-time? Hoosiers. Maybe Field of Dreams. Perhaps Rocky if you're the type of person who can tolerate two hours of Sylvester Stallone. It's a worthwhile debate. What does this debate have to do with the 2010 World Cup? Nothing. But if I asked you what's the greatest hockey movie released by Disney in 2004? There's no debating that one; it's Miracle (I'm shooting for a Miracle on Ice reference every other post. So far, so good.). What does Miracle have to do with the 2010 World Cup? Very little. But upon such ground, cities are built. Or whatever that saying is. You get the gist.
The Miracle on Ice is the greatest moment in American sports history. There is more debate on this subject than on Disney's greatest 2004 hockey movie, but not by much. The Cold War tensions of USA vs. USSR forever ensured Miracle's place in history. But the nature of the victory was equally important. The American team was a gigantic underdog. The, dare I say, miraculous nature of the win resonated more with the American public than a victory by any overwhelming favorite ever could. But 1980 was the last chance Americans had to root for an underdog with any sort of chance at success. The Dream Team was formed for the 1992 Olympics and since then anything less than a gold medal in an international basketball competition is considered an embarrassment. The American hockey and baseball teams may not have the same sort of unforgiving expectations as the basketball team but both are in the small group of elite teams at the top of their respective sports. No one else even plays American football. Foreign athletes come to ply their trade in America because we're the best (and most wealthy). It is a burden to wear the target on your back, to be at the top of the mountain, to be number one, to be the gold standard. Despite substantial strides made by other countries, the United States is still that gold standard in most athletic pursuits. But not soccer.
I am on record with my defense of greatness and athletic excellence. I have enjoyed watching a great (when focused) Lakers team over the past seven months. But barring very unforeseen circumstances the Lakers were going to be playing for the NBA Finals in June. And anything less than the capturing of the NBA championship next week will feel like a disappointment. Even to the fans. Watching and rooting for a great team comes with pressure and an aura of vague responsibility never associated with rooting for an up-and-coming underdog. Underdogs can only exceed expectations. Underdogs are fun. The USA Men's National Soccer Team is an underdog.
USA-England will likely go down as the most watched soccer telecast of all-time in the United States. A great many of these viewers, being the brash Americans that they are, believe that we will win this game just like we won the Revolutionary War (somewhat unconvincingly and with aid from France?). That is certainly possible but in all likelihood the English will win comfortably by the scoreline 2-0 or 3-1. There is a noticeable gulf in the talent level between the two teams and only two Americans would even make the English squad of 23 players; Landon Donovan and Tim Howard. The World Cup is not about USA-England, it's about USA-Slovenia and USA-Algeria and finishing second in Group C to advance to the single elimination portion of the tournament. At that point it becomes March Madness with penalty shootouts (i.e even more suspenseful and unpredictable) and anything can happen. Anything.
One team has beaten the Spanish national team since 2006. That team is the United States. Still, the world does not respect American soccer. It's unclear whether that's because of anti-American bias or the fact that Jonathon Spector starts for our national team. We will probably lose to England and would be likely underdogs in the event of advancement from Group C and a potential round-of-16 match. But that doesn't mean the American team is not capable of beating anyone in the world on a given day. We will not win the World Cup but we deserve respect. We may not have a superstar or an elite goalscorer. Our defenders may be slow and out midfield may lack creativity. We may be underdogs in the world of soccer but we are fun underdogs. This team likes each other. They work hard. They are in shape. With the proper mindset, watching this team perform on the world's biggest stage should be a wonderful experience. Be aware of the odds but relish the freedom of lower expectations. It's an opportunity an American sports fan rarely gets. We may not win the World Cup but a matchup with England or Spain or Argentina can no longer be counted as an automatic loss. In fact, it brings to mind the tagline of Disney's greatest 1994 baseball movie, Angels in the Outfield. It could happen.
Coming Up Next...Thoughts on Day 1 and/or running commentary during USA-England match
The Miracle on Ice is the greatest moment in American sports history. There is more debate on this subject than on Disney's greatest 2004 hockey movie, but not by much. The Cold War tensions of USA vs. USSR forever ensured Miracle's place in history. But the nature of the victory was equally important. The American team was a gigantic underdog. The, dare I say, miraculous nature of the win resonated more with the American public than a victory by any overwhelming favorite ever could. But 1980 was the last chance Americans had to root for an underdog with any sort of chance at success. The Dream Team was formed for the 1992 Olympics and since then anything less than a gold medal in an international basketball competition is considered an embarrassment. The American hockey and baseball teams may not have the same sort of unforgiving expectations as the basketball team but both are in the small group of elite teams at the top of their respective sports. No one else even plays American football. Foreign athletes come to ply their trade in America because we're the best (and most wealthy). It is a burden to wear the target on your back, to be at the top of the mountain, to be number one, to be the gold standard. Despite substantial strides made by other countries, the United States is still that gold standard in most athletic pursuits. But not soccer.
I am on record with my defense of greatness and athletic excellence. I have enjoyed watching a great (when focused) Lakers team over the past seven months. But barring very unforeseen circumstances the Lakers were going to be playing for the NBA Finals in June. And anything less than the capturing of the NBA championship next week will feel like a disappointment. Even to the fans. Watching and rooting for a great team comes with pressure and an aura of vague responsibility never associated with rooting for an up-and-coming underdog. Underdogs can only exceed expectations. Underdogs are fun. The USA Men's National Soccer Team is an underdog.
USA-England will likely go down as the most watched soccer telecast of all-time in the United States. A great many of these viewers, being the brash Americans that they are, believe that we will win this game just like we won the Revolutionary War (somewhat unconvincingly and with aid from France?). That is certainly possible but in all likelihood the English will win comfortably by the scoreline 2-0 or 3-1. There is a noticeable gulf in the talent level between the two teams and only two Americans would even make the English squad of 23 players; Landon Donovan and Tim Howard. The World Cup is not about USA-England, it's about USA-Slovenia and USA-Algeria and finishing second in Group C to advance to the single elimination portion of the tournament. At that point it becomes March Madness with penalty shootouts (i.e even more suspenseful and unpredictable) and anything can happen. Anything.
One team has beaten the Spanish national team since 2006. That team is the United States. Still, the world does not respect American soccer. It's unclear whether that's because of anti-American bias or the fact that Jonathon Spector starts for our national team. We will probably lose to England and would be likely underdogs in the event of advancement from Group C and a potential round-of-16 match. But that doesn't mean the American team is not capable of beating anyone in the world on a given day. We will not win the World Cup but we deserve respect. We may not have a superstar or an elite goalscorer. Our defenders may be slow and out midfield may lack creativity. We may be underdogs in the world of soccer but we are fun underdogs. This team likes each other. They work hard. They are in shape. With the proper mindset, watching this team perform on the world's biggest stage should be a wonderful experience. Be aware of the odds but relish the freedom of lower expectations. It's an opportunity an American sports fan rarely gets. We may not win the World Cup but a matchup with England or Spain or Argentina can no longer be counted as an automatic loss. In fact, it brings to mind the tagline of Disney's greatest 1994 baseball movie, Angels in the Outfield. It could happen.
Coming Up Next...Thoughts on Day 1 and/or running commentary during USA-England match
The World Cup?
Five months without a post? It’s been so long that Phileas Fogg has had time to nearly complete two around the world journeys. And since one of my principles is a general refusal to be embarrassed by any 19th century fictional character, that can only mean one thing...it’s bloggin time. It’s too bad the public will probably have to wait until October for another such similarly inane introduction. But until then the masses all four of you will have to manage with my thoughts on the greatest tournament in the world...THE NBA FINALS ON ABC! Nice. Actually, it’s the World Cup. Why the World Cup? Flawless logic. Soccer is the only truly global sport so the world’s greatest tournament should be a soccer tournament. The World Cup showcases the best combination of passion, skill, intrigue and patriotism soccer has to offer. Six continents will be represented this year and nearly every country in the world is eligible to participate. Yes, even you, North Korea. Ergo, blah blah, ipso facto, etc etc. Even a certain namesake of mine would be astounded by my deductive reasoning. The number of 19th century literary references now equals my estimated number of readers. I should probably move on. Cue transition.
I imagine you’re already wondering why you should bother reading this blog during the World Cup. My answer is this...you are a stupid American and know very little about soccer. I, on the other hand, played six games of high school varsity soccer and rank Soccernet as my fourth-most visited website. Okay, maybe I’m not the most qualified person, either. But I definitely have the time on my hands to watch most of the matches and my sleep schedule is already properly aligned to South African time. Seems like quite the resume to me. Plus, it’s awfully difficult to understand any of the actual experts given their ridiculous accents and incomprehensible euphemisms. Pox on them. That eliminates a good deal of my competition and I’d like to think that I have a more entertaining approach than my colleagues (yeah. I said it. colleagues.) over at ESPN. I very much doubt they will be painstakingly compiling a World Cup Ugliest XI over the next month but here at...whatever this blog’s called...I will do my best to field the most hideous team possible under Co-captains Franck Ribery and Carlos Tevez. Half of the English squad already appears to be jockeying for position so the Three Lions will be delighted to know that another roster spot has opened up due to Ronaldinho’s absence from this year’s tournament. You might even say that he’s been put out to pasture. Even if you can expect many more mediocre jokes and absolutely amateurish soccer analysis but I will bravely trudge along as America’s idiot savant for the 2010 World Cup in hopes of educating and entertaining a new generation of soccer* fans. May God have mercy on your soul.
Coming up next: Why I’m proud to be an American this June…
*As obligated by ESPN I am here to remind you that soccer is going to be the next big thing in America. No, really. I mean it this time. One game changes everything. Seriously. Yeah. Go soccer.
I imagine you’re already wondering why you should bother reading this blog during the World Cup. My answer is this...you are a stupid American and know very little about soccer. I, on the other hand, played six games of high school varsity soccer and rank Soccernet as my fourth-most visited website. Okay, maybe I’m not the most qualified person, either. But I definitely have the time on my hands to watch most of the matches and my sleep schedule is already properly aligned to South African time. Seems like quite the resume to me. Plus, it’s awfully difficult to understand any of the actual experts given their ridiculous accents and incomprehensible euphemisms. Pox on them. That eliminates a good deal of my competition and I’d like to think that I have a more entertaining approach than my colleagues (yeah. I said it. colleagues.) over at ESPN. I very much doubt they will be painstakingly compiling a World Cup Ugliest XI over the next month but here at...whatever this blog’s called...I will do my best to field the most hideous team possible under Co-captains Franck Ribery and Carlos Tevez. Half of the English squad already appears to be jockeying for position so the Three Lions will be delighted to know that another roster spot has opened up due to Ronaldinho’s absence from this year’s tournament. You might even say that he’s been put out to pasture. Even if you can expect many more mediocre jokes and absolutely amateurish soccer analysis but I will bravely trudge along as America’s idiot savant for the 2010 World Cup in hopes of educating and entertaining a new generation of soccer* fans. May God have mercy on your soul.
Coming up next: Why I’m proud to be an American this June…
*As obligated by ESPN I am here to remind you that soccer is going to be the next big thing in America. No, really. I mean it this time. One game changes everything. Seriously. Yeah. Go soccer.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Circle of Life
I posted this over at http://illegalnotion.blogspot.com/ so you should probably read it there but here you go...
Hi, everybody! (Hi, Dr. Nick.) I realize this is primarily an NFL Draft blog but I am one of the sixteen basketball fans left in this country and so will thus feel periodically compelled to offer my thoughts on my first love, the NBA. I can only hope the remaining fifteen fans are among the readers of this blog but I am not particularly optimistic about that point. These NBA musings will eventually all be accessible on the NBA Talk page (see the navigation bar above). Anyway, what better topic to begin my mostly incoherent ramblings than the primary point of contention among irrational NBA fanboys everywhere...Kobe vs. LeBron. One disclaimer before we get to the post...I am a diehard Lakers fan and Kobe Bryant is my favorite athlete of all-time. Nice. I don't believe this affects my objectivity in forming opinions but it's only right to put that out there first thing and let you make your own judgment. But onto the post...
I believe there is some sort of saying/adage/Chinese proverb that gives us the (surely paraphrased) nugget of wisdom that we cannot properly evaluate the present/future if we don't understand the past. Where we have been determines where we are going. So let's take a trip down memory lane to start things off here...
In the midst of the Lakers' mini-dynasty at the beginning of the past decade, Shaquille O'Neal began calling teammate Kobe Bryant the best basketball player on the planet. While this mostly illustrates Shaq's false modesty and a decided ignorance of one Mr. Timothy Duncan from San Antonio, Kobe certainly became the league's premier perimeter player around 2001. He has remained the most skilled (but not necessarily the best) player ever since. Some time after Duncan's back-to-back MVP's in 2002 and 2003 and during Shaq's descent into obesity, it became standard operating procedure to refer to Kobe Bryant as the world's best player. The NBA was Kobe's world for much of the past decade but if you haven't noticed the 00s are over. Kobe's time is over. And the NBA seems to be better off for it.
Kobe Bryant's reign as the NBA's finest player was a dark time for the league. He kicked things off by being accused of sexual assault in Eagle, Colorado. He then played a part in the destruction of the league's dominant team (a team the league needed because it created almost as much interest as Michael Jordan had), a Shaq/Kobe/Phil Jackson combination in Los Angeles. Kobe spent his prime languishing away on otherwise terrible Lakers team (not much there once Shaq left) and the league suffered. The Spurs won three championships in a five year span, each NBA finals receiving terrible television ratings as fan interest dipped. Fans wanted to see the league's preeminent player and its greatest shot-maker but Kobe Bryant was nowhere to be found. There was only Tim Duncan left to bridge the gap and his maddening adherence to fundamentals, more maddening consistency and most maddening eye-bulging weren't going to get it done. Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward of all-time. Tim Duncan is not Kobe Bryant.
Meanwhile, in events unrelated to Kobe Bryant or the NBA's waning starpower, the league additionally suffered from exceedingly dubious officiating (see 2006 NBA Finals) and the Ron Artest Brawl in Detroit. Michael Jordan legitimized the NBA as a mainstream professional league but left a gigantic vacuum at the top of the league after his (perhaps premature) retirement. The next decade should have been about Kobe Bryant fulfilling his potential as Michael Jordan's heir (if not necessarily his equal) but Kobe was not up to the task. He may have started his career in promising fashion and consistently demonstrated his immense talent but Kobe's overall body of work was not consistent or successful enough to maintain the casual fan's interest throughout the 00s. The league struggled and there were whispers of the NBA falling back to a niche sport in the post-Jordan years. Since 1980 (Magic and Bird enter the league), the NBA has been steadily gaining popularity. Basketball emerged around the world as a sport that could catch on internationally in a way that football (and to some extent, baseball) never managed. But five years ago the NBA could not maintain interest in its' country of origin. What had happened? The circle of life had briefly failed the NBA. And now the aforementioned trip down memory lane is complete and we can move onto the actual post (yeah, five paragraphs in and we're just getting started)...
What is the common thread holding together the childhoods of all Generation Nexters? (I'd like to propose an official change to Generation Sexters but that's an issue for another time) Is it the brief but bizarre fascination with beanie babies? For everyone's sake I'm going to say no to that one. Is it the O.J. trial? Good guess, but not quite. The thread that has stood the test of time (or at least the past fifteen years) and pulls our generation together is...The Lion King. Nice. (Obviously. Circle of life reference last paragraph? Come on now. And what else is there...pogs?
Just like any great Disney movie, The Lion King reveals most of life's important lessons upon closer inspection. Never trust the creepy, menacing uncle because he probably has diabolic plans that center around your exile/death. Everyone needs a fat, funny, slightly gaseous sidekick. Meerkats are awesome. Hyenas? Not so much. Always try to avoid a thundering wildebeest stampede. Ooooh, my bad. Still too soon? Regardless of the value of these lessons, the most important message passed onto our generation from The Lion King centers around the circle of life. The strong rule the weak until they inevitably succumb to weakness themselves. This brings about a new generation of ruling strength and life continues in this fashion indefinitely (or at least until the end of the movie and its sequel). Like any great lesson, the circle of life applies to more than the jungle life of lions, hyenas, warthogs and Rafiki. So while the NBA only possesses passing similarities with the African jungle, the circle of life could not have been more evident last Thursday night at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland during the Lakers-Cavaliers game. Or as it was better known as...Kobe vs. LeBron!! Part II!!
Despite his many admirers and rather vehement supporters, Kobe now quite obviously plays second fiddle to LeBron James. James burst onto the scene as a nineteen year old rookie in 2003 and has produced historically good statistics every year since. But it took James a few years to realize his potential as a player, as opposed to that of an athlete. Something seemed to click after the 2007 season (a regular season that he noticeably coasted through) and James has been the best player in the league ever since his single-handed destruction of the Pistons' stranglehold on the Eastern Conference in Game 5 the 2007 Conference Finals. But despite LeBron's domination, the LeBron vs. Kobe debate rages on.
In a way it's understandable; LeBron vs. Kobe is the most compelling individual matchup and "rivalry" since Magic and Bird battled in the 1980s. They should go down as two of the greatest ten players of all-time (at worst) and both are leading championship contenders near their respective individual primes. They both play on the wing but frequently handle the ball to initiate the offense and have very well-rounded games on both ends of the floor. Though they share these similarities and would thus seem to draw comparisons naturally, the debate continues for only two reasons; the complete restoration of Kobe's public image and Lebron's lack of championship rings.
Just as LeBron was ready to ascend to the top of the NBA world (king of the jungle you might say), Pau Gasol fell into the Lakers' lap and suddenly Kobe went from being a pouting gunner demanding a trade away from his mediocre NBA team to a mature, unselfish leader on the eventual Western Conference champions. Of course, Kobe didn't significantly alter his game during this time and you'd be hard-pressed to argue he improved as a player but the public's perception of Kobe was hastily modified by the Lakers' success and that made all the difference. Kobe was very likely a lesser player in 2008 than in 2006 when Kobe controversially shot (approximately) 437 times per game and carried the worst supporting cast in the league (other starters were Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown, Luke Walton and Smush Parker) to 45 wins and a near playoff series victory over a very good Phoenix Suns team. But most of the media places a huge emphasis on winning (not saying that is a terrible approach but other factors need to be considered) and consequently champions receive more (and sometimes undue) praise than superstar leaders of 45-win teams. And when there is a drastic change in win totals (Lakers improved by fifteen wins) the media must attribute this improvement to something new and/or improved. Nearly all of that improvement came from Pau Gasol being (not approximation, actual fact) 437 times better than Kwame Brown but Kobe, being Kobe, received a bit too much credit just as he had previously received a bit too much blame. And because of all of this Kobe received the 2008 MVP award and held onto the unofficial status as "best player in the world," both titles that LeBron thought within his grasp.
Whether LeBron's 2008 playoff series loss to the Celtics was particularly hard to swallow or the Redeem Team experience (and the exposure to Kobe's work ethic) particularly enlightening, LeBron spent the next twelve months dominating the league in a fashion not seen since young, motivated Shaq or, dare I say it, another #23 from Chicago. He was the best player on the Redeem Team that won the gold medal over a more than competent Spain team. He improved his shooting both from the free throw line (71% to 78%) and three point line (31% to 35%) while exhibiting a new-found appreciation for defense. LeBron's most impressive plays during the 2008-2009 season were not dunks, but blocks like these on opposing teams' fast break opportunities. He led a Cavalier team with only two other above average players (Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao), neither of whom are close to all-NBA performers, to 66 regular season wins. LeBron deservedly won his first MVP award and went on to average 35-9-7-2-1 in the playoffs. But Cleveland could not find its' way past the Orlando Magic and the subsequent media whirlwind over LeBron's refusal to acknowledge the Magic after the loss (and later Nike's confiscation of this rather underwhelming tape) put a damper on an otherwise historic season. Plus, the elephant in the room was not exactly sitting there quietly. Kobe Bryant was making quite a bit of noise of his own.
LeBron was Team USA's best player and (self-dubbed) leader but Kobe Bryant (and Jason Kidd) set the tone for the entire team. It was Kobe who laid the groundwork for Olympic gold in the qualifying Tournament of the Americas with his suffocating defense on Leandro Barbosa. And when Spain closed to within five points during the fourth quarter of the gold medal game, it was Kobe (the best player in the fourth quarter) who converted the ridiculous four-point play to give the U.S.A. breathing room. The NBA's 2008-2009 regular season saw a similar progression of events. LeBron was the league's most outstanding player throughout but Kobe hoisted the NBA Finals MVP trophy and won his first title as the best player on a championship team. LeBron has (somehow) become an even more efficient player this season and the Cavaliers have the best record in the league (again). But of the three analysts on TNT's studio show, only Charles Barkley gave the nod to LeBron as the game's best player (and that is a relatively recent development). Despite LeBron's MVP award and continued excellence it seems as if the TNT show is fairly indicative of the overall LeBron-Kobe debate and each side has a similar number of advocates. While not quite a traveshamockery, that there is even a debate at all shortchanges LeBron's complete (since I'm already using made-up words) badassness. That is all about to change.
Kobe passed the torch last Thursday. There was a changing of the guard. If you have another saying that describes the transition feel free to insert it here. Kobe started off hot and finished with 31 points but shot only 4-15 on field goals in the second half. LeBron managed a very productive first half despite not hitting his jumpshot but found his stroke in the fourth quarter and scored twelve straight points (many coming on eighteen footers). LeBron's hot streak was not an aberration, merely a return toward the mean because *gulp* he is now a good shooter. He shoots better than Kobe from three and posts only slightly worse percentages from 16-23 feet. Is a healthy Kobe Bryant the second best player in the NBA? Probably. Perhaps definitely (despite what those advanced statistical metrics reveal) considering his improved post game makes him more efficient than in years past. Has Kobe Bryant ever been as good as LeBron James is right now? Probably not. James is the single greatest athlete in NBA history, boasts exceptional vision, has a good/serviceable jumpshot, can defend multiple positions and is a very good rebounder. So...ummm...that pretty much covers everything. LeBron can do more things, more efficiently than Kobe ever could and has shown he has the ability to lead a team, too (his teammates love him). What more could you want? Oh, right. A championship.
Following the game last week the stories circulating around the internet seemed to focus on Cleveland's front court production (despite the Lakers talent advantage at power forward and center) and how the physical presence of Varejao and Shaq brought the big man match-up to a standstill. A very good point and a tip of my hat to journalists everywhere. But if the supporting casts played evenly who does that leave? Kobe and LeBron. The two went mano-a-mano down the stretch and LeBron came out on top. While it's always dangerous to read too much into one game (Orlando swept the regular season series last year against the Lakers and were easily dispatched in the Finals), this game showed the likely result of any game in which Cleveland neutralizes L.A.'s front court advantage. If LeBron and Kobe trade punches in the fourth quarter, more often than not it will be the Lakers looking like this. The Lakers can still win the title but it won't be because of Kobe Bryant's utter brilliance. He is no longer the best player in the game and while there has been debate about that very subject I have a sneaking suspicion that debate will be over in six months. LeBron James is the best player in the game and will not be denied again.
During their stint as teammates on the Dream Team, Michael Jordan had a discussion with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson about the greatest player/teams of all-time. I use the word "discussion" loosely. MJ concluded the conversation by saying that the 80s were over and it was his time now, that when everything was said and done he would go down as the greatest player who ever lived. Jordan proved himself a prophet over the next seven years, vanquishing all comers who couldn't throw a curve ball. The circle of life continued. A new superstar emerged with a combination of skill, athleticism, intelligence and desire never seen before. Just as importantly, Jordan played an exciting brand of basketball and was charismatic off the court. He captured the average fan's interest and sent the NBA's popularity through the roof. When Jordan retired there were two heir apparents that might be able to mimic Jordan's career arc (though not surpass it) and help maintain the NBA's popularity. (NOTE: I'm excluding Duncan, Garnett and Shaq because only Shaq had the necessary charisma and no one likes rooting for Goliath) Allen Iverson proved to be too shot-happy and had too many tattoos to appeal to corporate America. Kobe Bryant was handsome, spoke Italian and played the game with both flash and a composure that belied his young years. Kobe couldn't quite put everything together but the circle of life moved on and LeBron emerged as the rightful heir to Jordan (if we're going strictly The Lion King and Mufasa-MJ and LeBron-Simba does that make Kobe-Scar? I incidentally managed to compare Kobe to both Dumbo and Scar in the same post...I am the worst Lakers fan ever).
What will the game's evolution bring us in twenty years? Dwight Howard with Hakeem Olajuwon's footwork? The yeti from NBA Street (:50 mark)? I don't know who will be ruling the NBA jungle in 2030 but I know it will be something special because the circle of life continues.
I don't know how LeBron's career will unfold but if he has Jordan set in his sights I don't know who will stop him from being in the same conversation with His Airness. Kobe has been MJ-lite but King James seems to have already overtaken the former Prince of L.A. As a Lakers fan, I find LeBron entitled, arrogant and a bit annoying. As a basketball fan I am giddy about his future. Maybe in June the pundits will look back six months and find the turning point in the season on a cold January night. For all we know it could be a turning point in league history. The debate is over. Kobe's time is over. The future belongs to LeBron.
Hi, everybody! (Hi, Dr. Nick.) I realize this is primarily an NFL Draft blog but I am one of the sixteen basketball fans left in this country and so will thus feel periodically compelled to offer my thoughts on my first love, the NBA. I can only hope the remaining fifteen fans are among the readers of this blog but I am not particularly optimistic about that point. These NBA musings will eventually all be accessible on the NBA Talk page (see the navigation bar above). Anyway, what better topic to begin my mostly incoherent ramblings than the primary point of contention among irrational NBA fanboys everywhere...Kobe vs. LeBron. One disclaimer before we get to the post...I am a diehard Lakers fan and Kobe Bryant is my favorite athlete of all-time. Nice. I don't believe this affects my objectivity in forming opinions but it's only right to put that out there first thing and let you make your own judgment. But onto the post...
I believe there is some sort of saying/adage/Chinese proverb that gives us the (surely paraphrased) nugget of wisdom that we cannot properly evaluate the present/future if we don't understand the past. Where we have been determines where we are going. So let's take a trip down memory lane to start things off here...
In the midst of the Lakers' mini-dynasty at the beginning of the past decade, Shaquille O'Neal began calling teammate Kobe Bryant the best basketball player on the planet. While this mostly illustrates Shaq's false modesty and a decided ignorance of one Mr. Timothy Duncan from San Antonio, Kobe certainly became the league's premier perimeter player around 2001. He has remained the most skilled (but not necessarily the best) player ever since. Some time after Duncan's back-to-back MVP's in 2002 and 2003 and during Shaq's descent into obesity, it became standard operating procedure to refer to Kobe Bryant as the world's best player. The NBA was Kobe's world for much of the past decade but if you haven't noticed the 00s are over. Kobe's time is over. And the NBA seems to be better off for it.
Kobe Bryant's reign as the NBA's finest player was a dark time for the league. He kicked things off by being accused of sexual assault in Eagle, Colorado. He then played a part in the destruction of the league's dominant team (a team the league needed because it created almost as much interest as Michael Jordan had), a Shaq/Kobe/Phil Jackson combination in Los Angeles. Kobe spent his prime languishing away on otherwise terrible Lakers team (not much there once Shaq left) and the league suffered. The Spurs won three championships in a five year span, each NBA finals receiving terrible television ratings as fan interest dipped. Fans wanted to see the league's preeminent player and its greatest shot-maker but Kobe Bryant was nowhere to be found. There was only Tim Duncan left to bridge the gap and his maddening adherence to fundamentals, more maddening consistency and most maddening eye-bulging weren't going to get it done. Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward of all-time. Tim Duncan is not Kobe Bryant.
Meanwhile, in events unrelated to Kobe Bryant or the NBA's waning starpower, the league additionally suffered from exceedingly dubious officiating (see 2006 NBA Finals) and the Ron Artest Brawl in Detroit. Michael Jordan legitimized the NBA as a mainstream professional league but left a gigantic vacuum at the top of the league after his (perhaps premature) retirement. The next decade should have been about Kobe Bryant fulfilling his potential as Michael Jordan's heir (if not necessarily his equal) but Kobe was not up to the task. He may have started his career in promising fashion and consistently demonstrated his immense talent but Kobe's overall body of work was not consistent or successful enough to maintain the casual fan's interest throughout the 00s. The league struggled and there were whispers of the NBA falling back to a niche sport in the post-Jordan years. Since 1980 (Magic and Bird enter the league), the NBA has been steadily gaining popularity. Basketball emerged around the world as a sport that could catch on internationally in a way that football (and to some extent, baseball) never managed. But five years ago the NBA could not maintain interest in its' country of origin. What had happened? The circle of life had briefly failed the NBA. And now the aforementioned trip down memory lane is complete and we can move onto the actual post (yeah, five paragraphs in and we're just getting started)...
What is the common thread holding together the childhoods of all Generation Nexters? (I'd like to propose an official change to Generation Sexters but that's an issue for another time) Is it the brief but bizarre fascination with beanie babies? For everyone's sake I'm going to say no to that one. Is it the O.J. trial? Good guess, but not quite. The thread that has stood the test of time (or at least the past fifteen years) and pulls our generation together is...The Lion King. Nice. (Obviously. Circle of life reference last paragraph? Come on now. And what else is there...pogs?
Just like any great Disney movie, The Lion King reveals most of life's important lessons upon closer inspection. Never trust the creepy, menacing uncle because he probably has diabolic plans that center around your exile/death. Everyone needs a fat, funny, slightly gaseous sidekick. Meerkats are awesome. Hyenas? Not so much. Always try to avoid a thundering wildebeest stampede. Ooooh, my bad. Still too soon? Regardless of the value of these lessons, the most important message passed onto our generation from The Lion King centers around the circle of life. The strong rule the weak until they inevitably succumb to weakness themselves. This brings about a new generation of ruling strength and life continues in this fashion indefinitely (or at least until the end of the movie and its sequel). Like any great lesson, the circle of life applies to more than the jungle life of lions, hyenas, warthogs and Rafiki. So while the NBA only possesses passing similarities with the African jungle, the circle of life could not have been more evident last Thursday night at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland during the Lakers-Cavaliers game. Or as it was better known as...Kobe vs. LeBron!! Part II!!
Despite his many admirers and rather vehement supporters, Kobe now quite obviously plays second fiddle to LeBron James. James burst onto the scene as a nineteen year old rookie in 2003 and has produced historically good statistics every year since. But it took James a few years to realize his potential as a player, as opposed to that of an athlete. Something seemed to click after the 2007 season (a regular season that he noticeably coasted through) and James has been the best player in the league ever since his single-handed destruction of the Pistons' stranglehold on the Eastern Conference in Game 5 the 2007 Conference Finals. But despite LeBron's domination, the LeBron vs. Kobe debate rages on.
In a way it's understandable; LeBron vs. Kobe is the most compelling individual matchup and "rivalry" since Magic and Bird battled in the 1980s. They should go down as two of the greatest ten players of all-time (at worst) and both are leading championship contenders near their respective individual primes. They both play on the wing but frequently handle the ball to initiate the offense and have very well-rounded games on both ends of the floor. Though they share these similarities and would thus seem to draw comparisons naturally, the debate continues for only two reasons; the complete restoration of Kobe's public image and Lebron's lack of championship rings.
Just as LeBron was ready to ascend to the top of the NBA world (king of the jungle you might say), Pau Gasol fell into the Lakers' lap and suddenly Kobe went from being a pouting gunner demanding a trade away from his mediocre NBA team to a mature, unselfish leader on the eventual Western Conference champions. Of course, Kobe didn't significantly alter his game during this time and you'd be hard-pressed to argue he improved as a player but the public's perception of Kobe was hastily modified by the Lakers' success and that made all the difference. Kobe was very likely a lesser player in 2008 than in 2006 when Kobe controversially shot (approximately) 437 times per game and carried the worst supporting cast in the league (other starters were Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown, Luke Walton and Smush Parker) to 45 wins and a near playoff series victory over a very good Phoenix Suns team. But most of the media places a huge emphasis on winning (not saying that is a terrible approach but other factors need to be considered) and consequently champions receive more (and sometimes undue) praise than superstar leaders of 45-win teams. And when there is a drastic change in win totals (Lakers improved by fifteen wins) the media must attribute this improvement to something new and/or improved. Nearly all of that improvement came from Pau Gasol being (not approximation, actual fact) 437 times better than Kwame Brown but Kobe, being Kobe, received a bit too much credit just as he had previously received a bit too much blame. And because of all of this Kobe received the 2008 MVP award and held onto the unofficial status as "best player in the world," both titles that LeBron thought within his grasp.
Whether LeBron's 2008 playoff series loss to the Celtics was particularly hard to swallow or the Redeem Team experience (and the exposure to Kobe's work ethic) particularly enlightening, LeBron spent the next twelve months dominating the league in a fashion not seen since young, motivated Shaq or, dare I say it, another #23 from Chicago. He was the best player on the Redeem Team that won the gold medal over a more than competent Spain team. He improved his shooting both from the free throw line (71% to 78%) and three point line (31% to 35%) while exhibiting a new-found appreciation for defense. LeBron's most impressive plays during the 2008-2009 season were not dunks, but blocks like these on opposing teams' fast break opportunities. He led a Cavalier team with only two other above average players (Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao), neither of whom are close to all-NBA performers, to 66 regular season wins. LeBron deservedly won his first MVP award and went on to average 35-9-7-2-1 in the playoffs. But Cleveland could not find its' way past the Orlando Magic and the subsequent media whirlwind over LeBron's refusal to acknowledge the Magic after the loss (and later Nike's confiscation of this rather underwhelming tape) put a damper on an otherwise historic season. Plus, the elephant in the room was not exactly sitting there quietly. Kobe Bryant was making quite a bit of noise of his own.
LeBron was Team USA's best player and (self-dubbed) leader but Kobe Bryant (and Jason Kidd) set the tone for the entire team. It was Kobe who laid the groundwork for Olympic gold in the qualifying Tournament of the Americas with his suffocating defense on Leandro Barbosa. And when Spain closed to within five points during the fourth quarter of the gold medal game, it was Kobe (the best player in the fourth quarter) who converted the ridiculous four-point play to give the U.S.A. breathing room. The NBA's 2008-2009 regular season saw a similar progression of events. LeBron was the league's most outstanding player throughout but Kobe hoisted the NBA Finals MVP trophy and won his first title as the best player on a championship team. LeBron has (somehow) become an even more efficient player this season and the Cavaliers have the best record in the league (again). But of the three analysts on TNT's studio show, only Charles Barkley gave the nod to LeBron as the game's best player (and that is a relatively recent development). Despite LeBron's MVP award and continued excellence it seems as if the TNT show is fairly indicative of the overall LeBron-Kobe debate and each side has a similar number of advocates. While not quite a traveshamockery, that there is even a debate at all shortchanges LeBron's complete (since I'm already using made-up words) badassness. That is all about to change.
Kobe passed the torch last Thursday. There was a changing of the guard. If you have another saying that describes the transition feel free to insert it here. Kobe started off hot and finished with 31 points but shot only 4-15 on field goals in the second half. LeBron managed a very productive first half despite not hitting his jumpshot but found his stroke in the fourth quarter and scored twelve straight points (many coming on eighteen footers). LeBron's hot streak was not an aberration, merely a return toward the mean because *gulp* he is now a good shooter. He shoots better than Kobe from three and posts only slightly worse percentages from 16-23 feet. Is a healthy Kobe Bryant the second best player in the NBA? Probably. Perhaps definitely (despite what those advanced statistical metrics reveal) considering his improved post game makes him more efficient than in years past. Has Kobe Bryant ever been as good as LeBron James is right now? Probably not. James is the single greatest athlete in NBA history, boasts exceptional vision, has a good/serviceable jumpshot, can defend multiple positions and is a very good rebounder. So...ummm...that pretty much covers everything. LeBron can do more things, more efficiently than Kobe ever could and has shown he has the ability to lead a team, too (his teammates love him). What more could you want? Oh, right. A championship.
Following the game last week the stories circulating around the internet seemed to focus on Cleveland's front court production (despite the Lakers talent advantage at power forward and center) and how the physical presence of Varejao and Shaq brought the big man match-up to a standstill. A very good point and a tip of my hat to journalists everywhere. But if the supporting casts played evenly who does that leave? Kobe and LeBron. The two went mano-a-mano down the stretch and LeBron came out on top. While it's always dangerous to read too much into one game (Orlando swept the regular season series last year against the Lakers and were easily dispatched in the Finals), this game showed the likely result of any game in which Cleveland neutralizes L.A.'s front court advantage. If LeBron and Kobe trade punches in the fourth quarter, more often than not it will be the Lakers looking like this. The Lakers can still win the title but it won't be because of Kobe Bryant's utter brilliance. He is no longer the best player in the game and while there has been debate about that very subject I have a sneaking suspicion that debate will be over in six months. LeBron James is the best player in the game and will not be denied again.
During their stint as teammates on the Dream Team, Michael Jordan had a discussion with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson about the greatest player/teams of all-time. I use the word "discussion" loosely. MJ concluded the conversation by saying that the 80s were over and it was his time now, that when everything was said and done he would go down as the greatest player who ever lived. Jordan proved himself a prophet over the next seven years, vanquishing all comers who couldn't throw a curve ball. The circle of life continued. A new superstar emerged with a combination of skill, athleticism, intelligence and desire never seen before. Just as importantly, Jordan played an exciting brand of basketball and was charismatic off the court. He captured the average fan's interest and sent the NBA's popularity through the roof. When Jordan retired there were two heir apparents that might be able to mimic Jordan's career arc (though not surpass it) and help maintain the NBA's popularity. (NOTE: I'm excluding Duncan, Garnett and Shaq because only Shaq had the necessary charisma and no one likes rooting for Goliath) Allen Iverson proved to be too shot-happy and had too many tattoos to appeal to corporate America. Kobe Bryant was handsome, spoke Italian and played the game with both flash and a composure that belied his young years. Kobe couldn't quite put everything together but the circle of life moved on and LeBron emerged as the rightful heir to Jordan (if we're going strictly The Lion King and Mufasa-MJ and LeBron-Simba does that make Kobe-Scar? I incidentally managed to compare Kobe to both Dumbo and Scar in the same post...I am the worst Lakers fan ever).
What will the game's evolution bring us in twenty years? Dwight Howard with Hakeem Olajuwon's footwork? The yeti from NBA Street (:50 mark)? I don't know who will be ruling the NBA jungle in 2030 but I know it will be something special because the circle of life continues.
I don't know how LeBron's career will unfold but if he has Jordan set in his sights I don't know who will stop him from being in the same conversation with His Airness. Kobe has been MJ-lite but King James seems to have already overtaken the former Prince of L.A. As a Lakers fan, I find LeBron entitled, arrogant and a bit annoying. As a basketball fan I am giddy about his future. Maybe in June the pundits will look back six months and find the turning point in the season on a cold January night. For all we know it could be a turning point in league history. The debate is over. Kobe's time is over. The future belongs to LeBron.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Why I Care About The NBA...And Why You Should, Too
I hate the NBA. The players are selfish and only care about money. No one plays any defense. No one plays any offense, either. Teams simply run isolation plays for their best player and disregard ball movement. There are too many tattoos. Cornrows make men look like women. Why do players wear sleeves on their arms? I don't understand the game, anymore.
I wish I could watch basketball that was all about floor burns and diving into the first row. I wish I could watch teams unselfishly run a discernible offense. I wish I could watch legendary coaches become synonymous with one squad. I wish I could watch basketball in its' purest form. I wish I could watch basketball that seemed like one big shining moment.
I love college basketball. Why would I want to watch the NBA? College basketball has everything I need. I love the full court press. Who cares if ball pressure leads to (unorganized) chaos, numerous turnovers and exposes the (low) skill level of the college game? I love that college teams run a distinct offense. For example, Gary Williams runs the flex offense at Maryland. Announcers have been known to wax rhapsodic about its' effectiveness. You can't help but stand up and clap once a game when that back-pick on the baseline frees the cutter for an open lay-up. Who cares if that same offense often deteriorates into Greivis shooting contested jump shots? Who cares that half the time the ball finds it way inside Maryland doesn't come away with points because of poor finishing around the rim that plagues much of the college game? I love that college kids hustle; it displays heart, character and a love for the game. Who cares that the college game is a proving ground for future NBA players and many of those that lack the drive to succeed are weeded out before they reach the next level? Who cares that some of these kids coast because they are burnt out on basketball but it was the only way they could receive a college education? I love that the athletes aren't just basketball players but student-athletes, too. Who cares if the most talented players view college as a pit-stop before the NBA and only have to pass a semester's worth of classes? Who cares that some were offered money by boosters? Or that a few accepted those offers? Who cares that graduation rates among major-conference college basketball players are terrible and the game makes a mockery of the idea of the student-athlete? Who cares that these early entries have created weakened, inconsistent teams across the nation? I certainly don't. I love college basketball.
I have a confession to make. I don't hate the NBA. You may have been able to reason this out from the title of the post and all those rhetorical questions just now...but for all you idiots out there...I love the NBA. And while I'm not the biggest proponent of school spirit, I still enjoy college basketball. But when compared to the NBA there are only two aspects to college basketball that make it preferable to its' professional counterpart. The NCAA tournament is the perfect blend of gambling and mayhem and creates an excitement that borders on madness. A "March Madness," you might say. Also, the college atmosphere is preferable for watching a game (assuming you are in college) because it's far easier to get good seats and thousands of drunk kids always provide their own form of entertainment and excitement. As for the actual games...well there are reasons those kids are drunk and it's not just that a game provides a nice excuse to get bombed on an otherwise uneventful Tuesday (though that is probably most of it). The play is uneven and inconsistent. The game is played at a slower pace because of the longer shot clock and zone defenses (which also clogs the court defensively). Have you ever tried to sit through an entire Big Ten basketball game? It's almost as bad as watching the Big Ten get stampeded every winter during the college football bowl season (coming soon!). On an aesthetic level, the college game falls short. Way short.
The short version? You should care about the NBA because it's the best basketball around. And it's not close. Some say that the players don't work hard but NBA benches are filled with players who have separated themselves from those now playing in Europe or the D-League solely because of their hard work and determination. And the only way to become a superstar in the league is through the combination of God-given talent and dedication to the game of basketball. There are certainly players who coast or noticeably improve their games in contract years but that is true of any profession. It's no coincidence that upon entering the league small forwards suddenly extend their shooting range to the three-point line and rail-thin power forwards add twenty pounds of muscle to battle down low. Most players take their job very seriously, on both sides of the ball. Defenses became so organized and effective that the NBA took away the hand-check in an effort to increase scoring (which has indeed increased steadily since the 2003-2004 season that saw the borderline unwatchable Detroit Pistons win the championship). But the absence of the hand-check is not the only reason for increased scoring. The other reason is a very simple one; the NBA is flush with talent. The NBA is entering a Golden Age, of sorts. Older stars (Kobe, KG, Duncan, Nash, Dirk) have proven to still be near their peaks and the younger generation (LeBron, Carmelo, Wade, Paul, Howard, Durant, Deron Williams) has arrived in full-force. There are great players everywhere and, just as importantly, a group of great teams at the top of the league. Greatness abounds. And as we know (see last post), greatness is why we watch. The NBA exudes starpower but is that really any different than the other major sports?
March Madness is awesome and I wouldn't change anything about it but does it ensure that the best teams always play for the championship? Too often we see lopsided games late in the tournament where one team is hopelessly outmatched or simply plays poorly. The best team wins some of the time but you certainly can't say greatness is rewarded. To be honest, there are no longer any great college teams (UNC could have been last year if Ginyard was healthy and that was the closest anyone has come since the succession of Battier/Williams/Avery/Brand/James/Duhon/Dunleavy/Maggette/Boozer at Duke seven-twelve years ago). Early entry into the NBA draft has robbed the game of great teams (and oftentimes of great players).
The Major League Baseball playoffs are a complete crapshoot. Greatness certainly isn't rewarded there. The effect of great players is diminished, too. Albert Pujols can be pitched around completely during a playoff series and there is no guarantee the best players will even be in the playoffs. One player can only do so much in the game of baseball and the championship goes to the hottest/luckiest team in October.
Football is following in the footprints of MLB. The Colts won the Super Bowl in 2007 despite having better teams in a handful of other seasons. The Giants won the Super Bowl in 2008 even though the Patriots were one of the best teams ever assembled. The Cardinals made the Super Bowl last year. Enough said. The better teams have plenty of good players but what about the great ones? Chris Johnson is the most exciting player since Barry Sanders and probably won't even play in a wild card game. A great quarterback goes a long way in football but other than that...is greatness really rewarded?
Say what you want about the BCS but it has given us two national championship game classics since its' inception (Miami-OSU, USC-Texas) that would have never been possible otherwise. I'm all for a playoff system but at least the BCS rewards greatness (sometimes).
And that brings us to the NBA. You should care about the NBA because great players matter. Kobe Bryant carried the 2006 Lakers, a team that started Kwame Brown, Luke Walton and Smush Parker, to the playoffs (and within one Tim Thomas offensive rebound of a first-round series victory over the Suns). LeBron James carried the 2007 Cavaliers to the NBA Finals even though Boobie Gibson was the second most important player during the playoff run. Dwyane Wade somehow willed the Heat to the fifth seed in the East last year despite playing with...ummm...who is on that team again? Great players can make a difference even if they are surrounded by below-average players. More importantly, the team that wins the NBA championship almost always has one of the three best players in the league. The list of best players on a championship team since 1980-Magic, Moses Malone, Bird, Thomas, Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Garnett, Bryant (also Billups...dumb). This year is no different. Carmelo Anthony has been getting MVP talk because of his great scoring ability. But Carmelo Anthony will only put the Nuggets into the title hunt if he fulfills his potential as a great player (rebounding and assist rates have dropped, defense still inconsistent). Kobe Bryant and LeBron James are the best two players in the league. The Lakers and Cavs will be right there. Dwight Howard and Tim Duncan (still) are the two best big men in the league. The Magic and Spurs will be right there. The Celtics will need Kevin Garnett to regain a lot (if not all) of his former production to capture the championship. There are only ten players on the court at once. Great players affect the game of basketball more than any other sport. And that is for the better. I don't want to see Joe Johnson lead the Hawks to the NBA finals. I want to see LeBron, Kobe and Wade add to their resumes and display their skills come playoff time. And that happens in the NBA.
There were supposed to be four super-teams this season (Orlando, Boston, LA, Cleveland). None of these teams have lived up to lofty preseason expectations but that is more indicative of injuries/suspensions and the depth of the NBA this year (everybody has talent). The less than gaudy records do not change the fact that there should be four great teams in the playoffs this May (barring injury). And the Nuggets (more consistency, another big man) and Spurs (if anyone other than Duncan starts producing at normal levels) both have the potential to reach that point by the end of the season. Last year the Lakers won the NBA championship. This year they added an All-Star center (Bynum) and improved play from the bench (Farmar, Brown). Last year the Magic won the East. They upgraded their point guard position (Nelson/Williams) and added depth at every position. The Celtics have KG again (who is starting to get his legs back) and Rondo and Perkins continue to improve. The bench will be better, too, once Glen Davis comes back from injury. The Cavs aren't any better (they did win 66 games last year) but still have the single greatest weapon (by far) in any seven-game series-45 or 46 minutes per game from LeBron James. If the Spurs are healthy (and Parker and Ginobili are productive), they have the most balanced team of the Tim Duncan era. The Nuggets nearly beat the Lakers last spring and Carmelo has taken his offensive game to another level (plus addition of Lawson and more JR Smith/no Linas Kleiza). The playoffs will be fascinating and full of great match-ups and outstanding performances. But that is not why you should care about the NBA. You should care about the NBA because we will know who the best team is in June. Not the luckiest or the streakiest...the best. Injuries can play a factor and certain match-ups are bad for certain teams but the best team wins the NBA championship nearly every year. And in today's sports world that is surprisingly refreshing.
NOTE: There was no proofreading or organization to this post. I apologize if the run-on sentences made your head hurt (just trying to even the playing field). Or if my point got lost somewhere around paragraph seven. Quick recap. NBA-good. Lots of great players in their primes at the moment-good. Great players dominate the game-what I want to see. Best team wins-cool. Nice.
I wish I could watch basketball that was all about floor burns and diving into the first row. I wish I could watch teams unselfishly run a discernible offense. I wish I could watch legendary coaches become synonymous with one squad. I wish I could watch basketball in its' purest form. I wish I could watch basketball that seemed like one big shining moment.
I love college basketball. Why would I want to watch the NBA? College basketball has everything I need. I love the full court press. Who cares if ball pressure leads to (unorganized) chaos, numerous turnovers and exposes the (low) skill level of the college game? I love that college teams run a distinct offense. For example, Gary Williams runs the flex offense at Maryland. Announcers have been known to wax rhapsodic about its' effectiveness. You can't help but stand up and clap once a game when that back-pick on the baseline frees the cutter for an open lay-up. Who cares if that same offense often deteriorates into Greivis shooting contested jump shots? Who cares that half the time the ball finds it way inside Maryland doesn't come away with points because of poor finishing around the rim that plagues much of the college game? I love that college kids hustle; it displays heart, character and a love for the game. Who cares that the college game is a proving ground for future NBA players and many of those that lack the drive to succeed are weeded out before they reach the next level? Who cares that some of these kids coast because they are burnt out on basketball but it was the only way they could receive a college education? I love that the athletes aren't just basketball players but student-athletes, too. Who cares if the most talented players view college as a pit-stop before the NBA and only have to pass a semester's worth of classes? Who cares that some were offered money by boosters? Or that a few accepted those offers? Who cares that graduation rates among major-conference college basketball players are terrible and the game makes a mockery of the idea of the student-athlete? Who cares that these early entries have created weakened, inconsistent teams across the nation? I certainly don't. I love college basketball.
I have a confession to make. I don't hate the NBA. You may have been able to reason this out from the title of the post and all those rhetorical questions just now...but for all you idiots out there...I love the NBA. And while I'm not the biggest proponent of school spirit, I still enjoy college basketball. But when compared to the NBA there are only two aspects to college basketball that make it preferable to its' professional counterpart. The NCAA tournament is the perfect blend of gambling and mayhem and creates an excitement that borders on madness. A "March Madness," you might say. Also, the college atmosphere is preferable for watching a game (assuming you are in college) because it's far easier to get good seats and thousands of drunk kids always provide their own form of entertainment and excitement. As for the actual games...well there are reasons those kids are drunk and it's not just that a game provides a nice excuse to get bombed on an otherwise uneventful Tuesday (though that is probably most of it). The play is uneven and inconsistent. The game is played at a slower pace because of the longer shot clock and zone defenses (which also clogs the court defensively). Have you ever tried to sit through an entire Big Ten basketball game? It's almost as bad as watching the Big Ten get stampeded every winter during the college football bowl season (coming soon!). On an aesthetic level, the college game falls short. Way short.
The short version? You should care about the NBA because it's the best basketball around. And it's not close. Some say that the players don't work hard but NBA benches are filled with players who have separated themselves from those now playing in Europe or the D-League solely because of their hard work and determination. And the only way to become a superstar in the league is through the combination of God-given talent and dedication to the game of basketball. There are certainly players who coast or noticeably improve their games in contract years but that is true of any profession. It's no coincidence that upon entering the league small forwards suddenly extend their shooting range to the three-point line and rail-thin power forwards add twenty pounds of muscle to battle down low. Most players take their job very seriously, on both sides of the ball. Defenses became so organized and effective that the NBA took away the hand-check in an effort to increase scoring (which has indeed increased steadily since the 2003-2004 season that saw the borderline unwatchable Detroit Pistons win the championship). But the absence of the hand-check is not the only reason for increased scoring. The other reason is a very simple one; the NBA is flush with talent. The NBA is entering a Golden Age, of sorts. Older stars (Kobe, KG, Duncan, Nash, Dirk) have proven to still be near their peaks and the younger generation (LeBron, Carmelo, Wade, Paul, Howard, Durant, Deron Williams) has arrived in full-force. There are great players everywhere and, just as importantly, a group of great teams at the top of the league. Greatness abounds. And as we know (see last post), greatness is why we watch. The NBA exudes starpower but is that really any different than the other major sports?
March Madness is awesome and I wouldn't change anything about it but does it ensure that the best teams always play for the championship? Too often we see lopsided games late in the tournament where one team is hopelessly outmatched or simply plays poorly. The best team wins some of the time but you certainly can't say greatness is rewarded. To be honest, there are no longer any great college teams (UNC could have been last year if Ginyard was healthy and that was the closest anyone has come since the succession of Battier/Williams/Avery/Brand/James/Duhon/Dunleavy/Maggette/Boozer at Duke seven-twelve years ago). Early entry into the NBA draft has robbed the game of great teams (and oftentimes of great players).
The Major League Baseball playoffs are a complete crapshoot. Greatness certainly isn't rewarded there. The effect of great players is diminished, too. Albert Pujols can be pitched around completely during a playoff series and there is no guarantee the best players will even be in the playoffs. One player can only do so much in the game of baseball and the championship goes to the hottest/luckiest team in October.
Football is following in the footprints of MLB. The Colts won the Super Bowl in 2007 despite having better teams in a handful of other seasons. The Giants won the Super Bowl in 2008 even though the Patriots were one of the best teams ever assembled. The Cardinals made the Super Bowl last year. Enough said. The better teams have plenty of good players but what about the great ones? Chris Johnson is the most exciting player since Barry Sanders and probably won't even play in a wild card game. A great quarterback goes a long way in football but other than that...is greatness really rewarded?
Say what you want about the BCS but it has given us two national championship game classics since its' inception (Miami-OSU, USC-Texas) that would have never been possible otherwise. I'm all for a playoff system but at least the BCS rewards greatness (sometimes).
And that brings us to the NBA. You should care about the NBA because great players matter. Kobe Bryant carried the 2006 Lakers, a team that started Kwame Brown, Luke Walton and Smush Parker, to the playoffs (and within one Tim Thomas offensive rebound of a first-round series victory over the Suns). LeBron James carried the 2007 Cavaliers to the NBA Finals even though Boobie Gibson was the second most important player during the playoff run. Dwyane Wade somehow willed the Heat to the fifth seed in the East last year despite playing with...ummm...who is on that team again? Great players can make a difference even if they are surrounded by below-average players. More importantly, the team that wins the NBA championship almost always has one of the three best players in the league. The list of best players on a championship team since 1980-Magic, Moses Malone, Bird, Thomas, Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Garnett, Bryant (also Billups...dumb). This year is no different. Carmelo Anthony has been getting MVP talk because of his great scoring ability. But Carmelo Anthony will only put the Nuggets into the title hunt if he fulfills his potential as a great player (rebounding and assist rates have dropped, defense still inconsistent). Kobe Bryant and LeBron James are the best two players in the league. The Lakers and Cavs will be right there. Dwight Howard and Tim Duncan (still) are the two best big men in the league. The Magic and Spurs will be right there. The Celtics will need Kevin Garnett to regain a lot (if not all) of his former production to capture the championship. There are only ten players on the court at once. Great players affect the game of basketball more than any other sport. And that is for the better. I don't want to see Joe Johnson lead the Hawks to the NBA finals. I want to see LeBron, Kobe and Wade add to their resumes and display their skills come playoff time. And that happens in the NBA.
There were supposed to be four super-teams this season (Orlando, Boston, LA, Cleveland). None of these teams have lived up to lofty preseason expectations but that is more indicative of injuries/suspensions and the depth of the NBA this year (everybody has talent). The less than gaudy records do not change the fact that there should be four great teams in the playoffs this May (barring injury). And the Nuggets (more consistency, another big man) and Spurs (if anyone other than Duncan starts producing at normal levels) both have the potential to reach that point by the end of the season. Last year the Lakers won the NBA championship. This year they added an All-Star center (Bynum) and improved play from the bench (Farmar, Brown). Last year the Magic won the East. They upgraded their point guard position (Nelson/Williams) and added depth at every position. The Celtics have KG again (who is starting to get his legs back) and Rondo and Perkins continue to improve. The bench will be better, too, once Glen Davis comes back from injury. The Cavs aren't any better (they did win 66 games last year) but still have the single greatest weapon (by far) in any seven-game series-45 or 46 minutes per game from LeBron James. If the Spurs are healthy (and Parker and Ginobili are productive), they have the most balanced team of the Tim Duncan era. The Nuggets nearly beat the Lakers last spring and Carmelo has taken his offensive game to another level (plus addition of Lawson and more JR Smith/no Linas Kleiza). The playoffs will be fascinating and full of great match-ups and outstanding performances. But that is not why you should care about the NBA. You should care about the NBA because we will know who the best team is in June. Not the luckiest or the streakiest...the best. Injuries can play a factor and certain match-ups are bad for certain teams but the best team wins the NBA championship nearly every year. And in today's sports world that is surprisingly refreshing.
NOTE: There was no proofreading or organization to this post. I apologize if the run-on sentences made your head hurt (just trying to even the playing field). Or if my point got lost somewhere around paragraph seven. Quick recap. NBA-good. Lots of great players in their primes at the moment-good. Great players dominate the game-what I want to see. Best team wins-cool. Nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
