 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
YES, I SAID IT FIRST.
LEBRON JUST WRONG
By Patrick Morand, Senior Editor, “YES, I SAID IT FIRST”
We knew before the year began that his decision whether to extend with the Cleveland Cavaliers or move on to another best offer in his free agent option year would be one of the most scrutinized ever. He made us speculate, and eventually made a splash and now is attempting to deliver. LeBron was a story all year, and just when we could settle in to a Heat winning spell where the troika of NBA stars have performed like a stacked team should we get one more word from LeBron...and its these words that he claims makes him look smart, actually make him look stupid. LeBron told the media before a game in Phoenix that the NBA is too watered down of a league. Some teams have a few stars, or superstars like Miami, but there are plenty of teams that do not match up competitively and according to LeBron has made the sport not as interesting as say in the 80s. The 1980s when there were fewer teams, and more stars on the top teams. LeBron lamented in his media scrum that some people despise that his team has three superstars on it, while some franchises struggle. The overall quality of the league is affected because there are too many teams with no stars or only one. LeBron thinks that the “league would be more popular with multiple all-stars”. He was quoted as pondering “...how can it be bad for basketball when you have guys who want to win playing for the same team?” (Seriously, well maybe that team would be the only one winning? Isn’t that the way it already is in the present in the NBA?) LeBron says that there should be three or four all-stars on every team, three or four superstars on every team and of course three or four future Hall of Famers on every team to make things interesting. More stars on “every team” will equate to “every game being anticipated”. Wouldn’t it be great if they could “...take Kevin Love off Minnesota (Timberwolves) and add him to another team?” (...and these comments are not tampering...how?) Oh LeBron “...is not saying let’s take New Jersey or Minnesota out of the league...” (Oops, he just said it) “... I’m not stupid...” (the NBA isn’t either going to let a billionaire owner like in New Jersey walk because LeBron and others need that money?) “...it would be great for the league.” (If Minnesota and others were gone and a better pool of players left) **The brackets are my comments/thoughts not LeBron’s but he said what is in the quotes. Maybe LeBron is not the only one in the world that thinks these things. He is suggesting that with the current league of 450 players, all the best in the world, that it is impossible to have a competitive and exciting product most nights. He is also implying that in the 1980s when most players were from America that somehow that pool of great players was just enough to make all the teams competitive back then. And because there were about eight fewer teams, it was more competitive and interesting from night to night. Not only does his math not make sense, but his childhood memory seems to have failed him. Since the year 2000 until now eleven different NBA teams have advanced to the Finals. So one third of the present day franchises have been that close to winning – one of those teams had LeBron on them – is that not interesting enough? The NBA has averaged a new Finalist each year for the last twenty years. Should that not be a reason to excite the masses across the nation for NBA basketball? In the glorious 1980s only six teams (about a quarter) of all teams made it to the NBA Finals. That means that the stacked teams of that era dominated the regular season and the playoffs and it never changed. The NBA was lucky in the 1980s that the group of winners every year were in big markets and in historical NBA hotbeds well dispersed regionally. Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Boston had all the titles in that decade. LeBron only needs to look at the standings to see that today in his own division even the competition is more exciting than that. The basketball was very good in 1980 and that’s exactly why the sport grew and added franchises making players like LeBron richer today. No dispute there, but the 1980s game of basketball was much more wide open than the 2010 version. Pre and post LeBron’s transfer to Miami, teams in the Eastern Conference of the NBA have been beefing up on defense. Teams have started building and acquiring players to stop players like LeBron, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh from owning one of those NBA Finals spots for ever. Just maybe the reason basketball seems less interesting to some (not me) than in 1980 are the different rules and styles of play? In the 80s defense was not being emphasized and was rarely ever groomed in the NBA. Defense was not an important part of winning NBA basketball before the late 80s Detroit Pistons who won every game that they kept the opponent to below 100 points, and dare I say it, the physically dominating New York Knicks basketball teams of the early 1990s. The Knicks took the Bill Laimbeer (Pistons great) style of tough defense one step further and changed basketball forever. The Knicks survived in the NBA as a threat with one star and a punishing style of play that intimidated the other teams’ best players from doing what they were supposed to do, score without paying a bruising price. So the contrast in styles helped grow basketball because the game was popular when the Knicks were winning. Actually fans were sick of the same teams winning and liked that teams were built to stop them. Revenues post the Magic Johnson “ShowTime” years of scoring and finesse ball have gone up. Between the Lakers 1988 championship and LeBron’s super 2010 Miami team the league has grown, salaries have escalated astronomically, and more players have chosen basketball as a career path because of that. The development of players – athletes choosing basketball over say baseball or football, is directly related to having extra franchises (we call them basketball jobs in economics). Individual teams now have several hired coaches – the player to coach ratio in NBA basketball is unreal. There is a team in the NBA with 10 coaches on it. Why so many coaches? To win in today’s NBA requires smart people to strategize and stop the other team’s players – players like LeBron. If LeBron actually could have played in the wide open 1980s he would have been the greatest player ever. Imagine if he did not have to be responsible for playing defense himself? The reason some people (LeBron) think the NBA is boring is probably because they play defensive basketball now. Teams can’t take a chance with the run and shoot. Recently Denver tried it and while pretty they lost too many games by scores of 140-135. Every team is capable of playing that way, but the game’s style does not allow it if a team wants to be successful. Yes scoring is down in the defensive era. Part in parcel this is LeBron’s biggest problem and why he makes the comments that he does is probably out of frustration. Coming in to the league LeBron’s advance to the top of the sport was stunted by teams like Detroit which was a defensive juggernaut that won championships while LeBron’s Cleveland Cavaliers did not. By the time LeBron had figured this game out, his Cavs were very good but the rest of the east a tad better on defense. Boston and Orlando were capable of presenting a better package to stop LBJ. Boston and Orlando are the top defensive teams in the east, and they both are teams stacked with the players capable of winning – the type of teams ironically LeBron wishes every team could be? I think not. LeBron would have trouble being dominant in that type of league – but I jest. If you agree with LeBron then is contraction an appropriate solution? Should the league get rid of the Minnesota’s so that more teams could be stacked like Orlando and Boston? In the present, if it could happen next month, yes it would work. Next year and the year after it could benefit the sport in those cities that get to keep teams. Only those guys who lose jobs would not like it so if they were out of the sport then the rest of the sport would do just fine. But within four years the same problem would happen all over with just fewer teams involved. There will always be a third of the teams that are the very best, and a third that no matter what will be losing to those teams all the time. The dangerous part is that it would kill basketball in the long run. In the long term there would be fewer jobs to go around, and the league would earn less money because it would not be present in as many markets. That means the players and owners would all be splitting up a smaller pie of wealth. That means it would not be as enticing a career path for young athletes that will be needed to eventually replace LeBron. Players, who could do it, may be scared away by the knowledge that if they underperform the league might possibly contract again and they would be chopped with it. For less money why take the risk? So besides Minnesota and New Jersey (a big market team) who else would have to be contracted? Would it have to be Toronto, Charlotte, Memphis, New Orleans, and maybe the Los Angeles Clippers? Well what will develop here is a list of franchises that are run badly or have had trouble maintaining talented players. These franchises are always the same ones. This is really not a problem of there being not enough elite players and the league being watered down. There are enough elite players, but the problem is the teams. Teams include everyone from player and coach up to ownership. Just like in the 1980s the franchises that were run awful and made the bad trades, or had programs which were impossible to succeed with generally have players and owners that are never on the same page. Cleveland was one of those teams. Cleveland never competed until LeBron arrived and gave that team a goal and a means (him) to aspire towards that goal. Well we all know what happened there. LeBron got discouraged because the ownership did not do enough to help him get to that goal which became more and more his goal and not theirs. Take a look at Cleveland lately? Ergo, LeBron’s motives aside, elite players hope to someday play on teams that win and can win in the playoffs. LeBron made it even harder for some of these teams, now his potential candidates for contraction, like Toronto by enticing their best player to give up and look for a stacked team that would take him. Of course they all need a legacy to make the Hall of Fame. LeBron thinks all teams should have 3 or 4 future Hall of Famers on them. Noble, but again a mathematical conundrum if you think only the elite of the elite can be Hall of Famers. The whole Hall of Fame would be less prestigious if that many guys were qualified. Fact is that by 2025 we will regard the top five teams of today and their players in the same way we now regard the top players of the 80s from the Lakers, Celtics and Pistons teams. Today any basketball novice can name five guys on the Celtics that will no doubt all make the Hall. They probably will get the whole 2010 starting five in a wing when they retire. Is the Hall of Fame for players with long careers at the top or for players who win titles? What exactly makes a player either a “superstar” or a “Hall of Fame superstar”? Would all three of LeBron, Wade or Bosh qualify even with their lack of championship rings (Wade has one)? Are Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili more worthy having wins under their belt compared to great individual exciting performers like Steve Nash and Vince Carter who have sometimes played on inferior teams? Wouldn’t Paul Pierce, Rajon Rondo, Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal be considered the elite of the elite Hall of Fame bound players that play in the NBA right now? Would Mo Williams in Cleveland be considered as great if LeBron could have delivered for him while they were teamed up in Cleveland? Leave it to LeBron James who moved on to Miami because he wanted to win and needed to surround himself with winners to do that to actually throw half of his NBA brethren under the bus by suggesting that the 1980s cast on the whole was better than this one. I would have respected more an argument that extolled that too many guys are in the league for their eight figure salaries than to win anything. Really, was the passion that much greater in the 1980s for the cast of players not named Larry Bird, Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, or Patrick Ewing? The success of that era is partially responsible for there being so many teams today. Today many of the players on other “struggling teams” will get the minutes to develop into great players because they can play with first string units and learn all aspects of the game. Sometimes losing games makes them want it more – like LeBron lost some games in Cleveland (some bigger than others). Those players might only be bench warmers in a smaller league where every team looked like the Heat. Decisions like the ones LeBron and the others made to play together have in fact sped up the opportunities for lesser players to show their wares. Good competition is an everyday thing. LeBron’s team and a few others are supposed to dominate this era. Are they really complaining that it is now too easy and their opponents do not have a chance against them? Think about that for a second? If they (the Heat) go on to dominate this league (remember it’s watered down) doesn’t that lower their own star status to second rate and perhaps not as great as stars from the 1980s? In 1980, Miami did not have an NBA basketball team. What if we thought back then like LeBron thinks now? Would the Bullets (Wizards) be the best team in the southeast right now? Would Wizards draft pick John Wall have even considered a career in basketball over the infinite possibilities and money in baseball? Really, I think basketball would now be even worse and less relevant. Michael Jordan winning all those titles on those stacked Chicago teams didn’t hurt the game; it made it better and more popular across the board. It made people in Minnesota think they should have a basketball team. The game wasn’t better in the 1980s. It was adequate for its day but it is better now in many ways. The difference is really all about aesthetics and style, and the debate should be about that. The 80s game was pretty good, but the 2010 game which created the star in LeBron needs to be judged on its own merit. If it’s not exciting enough for some perhaps it is time to look at developing more games against fierce rivals with more head to head games. I can see that in a conference with great teams like Miami, Boston, and Orlando there is a need to showcase more of them playing head to head. Perhaps what really wore out LeBron’s interest in Cleveland was the lack of intensity night after night while some teams in their division were rebuilding. It certainly didn’t help his team get over the hump. It is an area the NBA should look at, but the league is very committed to showcasing its stars wherever they play and has opted to not splinter the playing schedule by increasing divisional play. If that is the case a third of the teams, the ones with a history of bad decisions and lacklustre ownership that is destructive will continue to dumb down exactly one third of the games. Watered down – not at all – the players are there playing well, but just not winning. If they were would LeBron be happy being on a team with just 3 superstar/future Hall of Famers if it meant just a five hundred winning percentage? Probably not, then he would think he would have to be on a more dominating team - perhaps one with six superstars and six future legends - maybe? Nobody said dominating the NBA would be an easy chore. Well for LeBron 2010 was all about trying and for that he was the story of the year.
from the Media Division of OJC-Inc.  Tap the mail button to share this article with a friend!
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Without any need to argue to prove the fact, LeBron James of the NBA’s Miami Heat is the pro sports newsmaker of 2010. 
| Site Map |