Vision Circle

I can't say that I agree with you. The Spurs and Pistons are two sides of the same coin. Popovich suckled at Larry Brown's hoop tit. He was Brown's assistant in San Antonio. Neither team plays a glamorous offensive game...neither team has more than one household name - arguably Duncan is the only household name on either roster - and most households know precious little about him to identify. I do not think the idea that the league tends not to favor defensive teams is an argument against the Pistons. The Spurs are too similar stylistically for this to be a differentiating factor. I think they lost because they fell apart at the end of Game 5 and at the end of Game 7. Moreover, since the LAST THREE CHAMPIONS (Spurs 2x, Pistons 1x) have played the EXACT SAME STYLE, there is little that can be said about the power of officials to ensconce another style of play at the top of the ladder. Simply, defense wins championships and offense packs the seats. This did not propel Phoenix to the finals against Miami. If ever there was a year for a conspiracy, it was this year - and it certainly would NOT have involved the SPURS winning another championship - it would have involved a white MVP (Steve Nash) leading his team into the Finals against the NUMBER 1 seller of jerseys in the league (D. Wade) - injuries be damned. If the refs wanted a championship series of Phoenix and Miami, it would not have been impossible to do. That's where the money was for the league - TV money, gambling money, advertising money...there was no added financial benefit in getting a Spurs - Pistons final. In fact, that was the least attractive matchup of any of the four possibilities.

In addition, I would argue that in the 80's the league really did emphasize teams more than individuals...The Celtics and Lakers games were always about more than 1 matchup - it was always more than Bird vs. Magic - it was Worthy vs. McHale...it was Parrish vs. Kareem. Granted the Bird-Magic matchup was primary, but it was also part of a whole - and it was never separated from the history of Russell and Chamberlain. Moreover, the Celtic - Laker clash was as much as RACE as it was about individual stars...collectively, what the Celtics and Lakers represented was much "greater" than what any one player represented. Arguably, Bird had more pressure on him because he was the lone white ranger capable of winning an entire series - and he was only able to beat the Lakers ONE time.

I would argue that the league's fascination (and subsequent embrace) with the single great player paralleled Jordan's career. In fact, Jordan played SEVEN years before winning a title. In his early days, he watched Magic, Bird and Isiah earn multiple titles.

Jordan's championship career ushered in the end of great rivalries between teams in the NBA Finals. The Bulls won 6 times against 5 different teams (Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Sonics, Jazz(2)). The Bulls never had a rival in the Finals. The Jazz were hardly a rival to the Bulls. Moreover, at the of Jordan's emergence, the only other team that could enter a discussion of "great" was Olajuwon's Rockets - and the Bulls never played them. Barkley didn't play on great teams, but he was a great player. I know how you feel about Ewing - and you know how I feel about his surrounding cast.

So, the era that preceded Jordan's rise was full of great teams - Isiah had Dumars, Dantley, Aguirre, VJ, Rodman, etc. Magic had Cooper, Scott, Worthy, Wilkes, Nixon, AC Green ("Don't call me anymore...with feet like Ben Vereen..."), McAdoo, Jabbar. Bird had McHale, Parrish, DJ, Ainge, Walton, Wedman, etc. Even in 1983, Dr. J needed Moses to get over the top. Cheeks and Andrew Toney and Bobby and Caldwell Jones were indispensable parts of those great teams. The continuity of these teams - five to ten years runs at the top of the standings was a reflection of more than just great individual play.

You could argue that one of the reasons, aside from the passage of time, that players like Dominique Wilkins, Chris Mullin, Walter Davis and others are not as highly regarded now is because they played in an era of great teams and were locked out of the Finals showcase. It has yet to be seen if today's players like Garnett, Nowitzki, Stoudemire, McGrady and others will retain a legacy of greatness without winning a ring. Even with all of today's emphasis on individual players, DUNCAN AND SHAQ have won 6 OF 7 TITLES since Jordan's last dance with the trophy. Last year's Pistons have been the only interlopers. That speaks volumes to the nature of the league...the league has never given San Antonio props as a great team - the Lakers were sexy, but the Spurs have kicked just as much as lately.

One final note...the Pistons are not likely to make it back to the Finals and win unless they can secure a top notch coach. As such, they would become the first non-multiple season champion since the 1982-1983 Sixers. Every team since that year won at least twice with a fairly common core of players. And each team had a DOMINANT #1 scorer and a strong #2 scorer - and usually a damn good #3 scorer. Boston (Bird, Parrish, McHale, DJ), LA (Kareem, McAdoo, Nixon, Wilkes, Worthy, Magic, Scott), Detroit (Isiah, Dumars, Aguirre, VJ, Buddha), Chicago (Jordan, Pippen), Houston (Olajuwon, Cassell, Drexler, Horry, Maxwell, Smith), Chicago, San Antonio (Duncan, Robinson, Elliott, Ginobli), LA (Shaq, Kobe). I don't think the League has changed as much as you do. I think Jordan came along at a time when his unique talents combined with Pippen's (and the fading stars of players like Magic, Bird and Zeke) to dominate a barren landscape and REQUIRE the league to shift emphasis from what it no longer had (great teams) to what it had (great individual talents - Barkley, Wilkins, Ewing, Drexler, Reggie Miller, Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Roy Tarpley, Derek Coleman, Kevin Johnson - forget about your assessments of the talent of these respective folks - they carried their cities for a few years, but did not play on great teams.) I look at the Jordan years as an aberration from the norm...Duncan and Shaq restored the NBA to its traditional mode of operation - the pattern established by George Mikan and Bill Russell.

What I found most interesting about the Miami - Detroit series and the SA - DET series is that last year's Laker team had more talent than this year's version of the Spurs and Heat - but that Laker team did not play together. They did not move the ball. They did not play defense. They did not run the floor as a team. They did not dig in to get stops. They did nothing. Had that team played with the same spirit of collaboration it took to beat the Blazers and Kings in prior years, I doubt the Pistons would have had such an easy time with them. That both series this year went to 7 games with considerably less talent on the floor suggests to me that the Lakers lost that championship in the locker room - and not on the court...I don't mean to take anything away from the Pistons, but simply, teams win the Finals, not individuals.

Finally, bruh, I don't see a conspiracy in the crowning of the Spurs. I see a challenge to the Pistons to define a new legacy for teams in the league using a different model of play than that which has dominated the league since the last era of single season champions...1977-1979...Portland, Washington, Seattle. Bill Walton/Mo Lucas, Elvin Hayes/Dandridge, Jack Sikma/Gus/DJ. It's been a while...the next year 1979-1980 was Magic's rookie season and that has been it for the single season champs save for Moses' free agent stint with the Sixers (a team which beat the Lakers minus James Worthy (broken leg) and Bob McAdoo and Norm Nixon - big deal) in 82'-'83 (lost in the first round to the Nets the next year) and last years' Pistons. Two teams in nearly 30 years.

And, this Piston team is further differentiated from that Sixer team because that team had so many elite scorers - Malone, Erving, Toney, etc.) Actually, when looked at from this perspective, Larry Brown and that team did a TREMENDOUS job in winning. Surely there have been moments when the refs merited criticism - but this is not in the top 10 for me.

Posted by at June 26, 2005 04:17 PM | TrackBack