Philanthropist Smith Retires from League. I remember when he donated the loot for the student center. The next step for the big money makers is philanthropy.
owner of the los angeles lakers who pulled the single silliest move in the history of a franchise built on the backs of mikan, chamberlain, jabbar and o'neal. there are other numbers in the rafters, including #32 (my personal favorite), but none are bigger than those of the big men who dominated the low post in LA. buss traded shaq and here comes the hammer...it seems some of his old peeps had a meeting and put together the LARGEST TRADE in NBA HISTORY...and guess who's involved...
Jerry West, Pat Riley, Bryon Scott. Can you imagine the conversation. I wonder who called whom first...maybe it was Riley since he was the most desperate - or maybe West since he's still a bit miffed at the Lakers...West: "Pat, let's talk, I've got Bryon on the line and, uh, as we much as we all hate Danny Ainge, it seems the Celtics could be in our corner on this one. Besides, I know you need to move Eddie Jones, and he's still part of our family...we'll take care of him too."
If ever there was a group out to win a championship and build bridges to lock the lakers out, here it is...Miami, assuming that shaq and wade don't get injured will have White Chocolate (back home in Florida) dropping dimes to d-wade, 'toine and shaq...ya gotta be kidding...if they're healthy, it's a wrap.
if i was in a room and wanted to win again and i had phil and kobe and mitch kupchak in the room, i'd be a little nervous...jerry can work on his golf game in june for the foreseeable future...he won't be putting up any more hardware in the staples center.
i guess this is what is meant when they say, "the stars are aligned."
This letter was written to a dismayed friend in Detroit, downtrodden about the demise of his defense-oriented squad. At the hint of a conspiracy theory, I "penned" the following:
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.
ESPN's Scoop Jackson recently cobbled together a few words about the engine that drives the Pistons...
LKS, you are right...Wiley is missed...there are a number of places Scoop could have with this, but does not bring it home because...
he argues that Wallace makes white America comfortable in ways that Iverson never could, but says that his look (ostensibly the same as Iverson's) is what America and the NBA are afraid of...I don't think so (more below). I don't know that black folks aren't offended by white people wearing afros. The fact that white folks haven't caught a beat down in the Palace doesn't mean they won't catch a beat down in Greek Town or rolling out of The Joe. The Palace is a LOOONG way from the D. Still, Wallace's popularity does tug at the mythical American work ethic...
but, here again, how does Scoop J reference African labor in America without mentioning slavery explicitly. Jackson writes, "America, also, is a country built by black folk. From the cotton woven into the shirts we wear down to the concrete laid on the roads we travel, this country in large part was built on the backs of people like the ancestors who gave birth to Ben Wallace." The issue is not labor, but uncompensated labor, state-sponsored terrorism, and institutionalized practices to preclude capital formation or land tenure by Africans. Perhaps this was simply a stylistic choice by Scoop. Maybe. Nonetheless, this topic presents an opportunity to link Michigan's own John Conyers calling for reparations? 'Cause there's more to this than meets the eye. After all, it is the salary of athletes and entertainers that stands as one of white America's loudest, albeit weakest, counters to Conyers' appeal.
From a political standpoint, Big Ben is the strong, silent type. Contrast him with a guy like Mahmoud Abdur-Rouf (birth name Chris Jackson). He rose to national prominence for refusing to stand or face the flag during the national anthem. Since being white listed from the league, his house was firebombed and he has had no opportunity to restore himself to the NBA. He was absolutely the BEST scoring guard the NCAA has seen in decades...Prior to his embrace of Islam (fasting for Ramadan), and evolving Tourrette's Syndrome, he was an unbelievable on-court talent. He had "in the gym" range on the jumper (good out to 30+ feet), the quickest release in the game, a sick handle, and he was a good on the ball defender. So, his legacy is significantly different than that of Iverson or any other player still in the league.
His article got me to thinking about cats who are persona non grata in the NBA. Aside from Mahmoud Abdur Rouf, I came up with Craig Hodges (also Muslim), Kermit Washington (KO of Rudy T - back in the day...and I will say that had Rudy T grown up in any hood - he would know better than to run up behind someone engaged in a fight, regardless of his intentions...ya just don't do it...hell, I knew that in 2nd grade), Kareem Abdul Jabbar...and that's about it...the rest of the outsiders linked to drugs (usually given an infinite number of rehab shots). It's interesting that this league with so many Africans in its employ has taken such a neo-Bull Connor approach to these four men. Rick Barry is a fifth outsider worthy of mention. It seems the story on him is that his ego precluded folks from wanting to work with him...
Wallace doesn't really make white folks comfortable in a way that Iverson never could. Rodman makes white folks comfortable in a way that Iverson never could. From wearing a dress to kicking black cameramen in the balls to the creative hair coloring, Rodman epitomized the Black man posing the smallest threat to white folks. Ben Wallace is hardly that. Ben Wallace could well be "the spook who sat by the door." And, so, insecure, absurd white folks can wear Afro wigs and root and cheer, but beyond the confines of the hoop and the hardwood, Wallace is his own man - with his own mind.
The media would have us believe that anyone wearing tattoos and cornrows is a thug - and yet, the two hardest working men in the league (Wallace and Iverson) have embraced this look. Iverson is as popular in Philadelphia as Wallace is in Detroit. Iverson may not be popular with certain members of the media, but he is certainly a draw across the league. Until D'Wade's emergence in Miami, Iverson's jersey was a top-seller. Hard work is it's own reward and only small minds really believe America is really afraid of tattoos and cornrows. After all, in how many arenas of public/private/incarcerated life do tattoos and cornrows hold sway? It is limited by any measure. All of this notwithstanding, Big Ben is attractive to national and regional firms: EA Sports NBA 2K5, Ford...and more sure to follow - if he wants that - which is a question.
Is it the symbol or the substance? After all, tattoos and cornrows (or even a wedding dress)won't get your house firebombed and it won't get you banned from the league.
It seems that we all lose a little perspective along the way. Then again, that works both ways. Grandparents hate hiphop and loved the juke joint. Parents hate hiphop but got "Between the Sheets" with them boys from Teaneck (Isley's for the "new"). I was going through a list of TOP 10 Power Forwards in the history of the association and thought I'd share.
So I got ta thinkin' that based on an entire career - and its current trajectory, I don't have much of a problem with this list...
but I also realized that too few of the "glamour" players have played this position and authentically established themselves as valuable. It's hard to get love as a grunt in the league.
The position has become sexier with the likes of Barkley, Coleman, Webber, Wallace, etc. Back in the day - it was all man-style...and that made me laugh. Ain't no way in hell Garnett is better than Elvin Hayes. As much as I like KG and respect his athleticism, the Big E would have chewed him a new one - EVERY time out. So, I can forgive the commentators their folly.
Life or death, gotta have one guy for one game??? - I'll take McHale. He's fouling you out...he's blocking shots, he's getting fifteen rebounds - maybe more...and HE'S MAKING HIS FREE THROWS...first guy in league history to shoot 60% from the field and 80% from the line. I'll take that any day.
A look at the boxscore from last night's Detroit-Miami matchup reveals two things. First the game got away from the Pistons in one quarter--the second. Every other quarter the game was close. The second, was Rasheed Wallace's line. A couple of points on a couple of shots.
When the Pistons don't get production out of Wallace--who is really their only postup threat, they don't win. It's that simple.
But the way the Pistons broke down mentally was frustrating not just from the standpoint of a supporter (as Prince noted "fan" is short for "fanatic").
From the Pistons' standpoint, the refs took this game (and game #3) from them. Three or four offensive fouls called consecutively? Even the announcers were puzzled by it, noting that the refs' calls didn't seem to be consistent.
As someone watching from tv-land, while coding data (I told you I'm a supporter not a fan), it seemed as if most of the refs calls were legitimate calls...but that they were calls that would not normally be made during the course of an nba game. It's technically illegal to switch lanes while driving without signalling, but most police officers won't pull you over for doing it.
But here's the thing--during the course of the game you cannot do a damn thing about what the ref calls. All you can do is play your game. You want to mobilize against the refs? Cool. Do it after the game.
*********************************************************************
I always thought that Rasheed got a bum rap. Coming from the Derrick Coleman school of power forwards (can handle, pass, shoot the rock from behind the arc, use power, and use finesse), Wallace has always had game. Always. I still marvel at the fact that the Washington Wizards (then Bullets) let Webber, Howard, and Rasheed get away. But Sheed's problems (which didn't appear until he was shipped to Portland) were threefold.
First, he was in the wrong market for his game. Someone like Wallace was much better suited to a Detroit, a DC, an Atlanta, than a city like Portland. He needed to be in a city where folks sported gold teeth and rims. A solid working class city with a lot of working class black people. The type of people who understood why someone like Rasheed wasn't friendly towards the media off the court, why he played with righteous anger on it.
When Dumars made the play for him, I knew Wallace had found a home. Even when Zeke came calling from NYC.
Second, Wallace was always more of a Pippen (sans the chump-like headaches)than a Jordan. That is, Wallace wasn't really cut to demand the ball. To be "the man." People always expected that of him, because of the skills he had...but that doesn't really fit his style. Rasheed is well aware that the game of basketball is just that, a game. One of the things that separated Bird, Magic, JOrdan, and Isiah, or someone like a Woods, is that they felt that everytime they competed, their lives were on the line. And everytime they lost, a little bit of them died inside.
Hell, I hate to lose. Hate it. But I'm not going to do the equivalent of slitting someone's throat to not lose. Someone like Isiah? In a minute.
Rasheed? Nope.
Third.
The referees. I think NBA refs have too much control over the game. I think they have no visible checks on their authority--not even a commentator can go too far in criticizing them. And it is clear that certain refs have much too thin a skin for their job, and that they go after players. Javits is particularly hard--I believe it was Javits that had to be separated from van exel at one point. And if Rasheed is anything besides a Tar Heel, he is skeptical and highly critical of authority. The way Rasheed feels about NBA refs is most likely similar to the way he--and most of us (by "us" I mean black men under 40) feel about police.
But in his case, he encounters them every day on the job...and they're watching over him like a hawk. Raise an eyebrow?
Smack.
No wonder Rasheed's led the league in technicals or been near the top. But going to Detroit, folks thought he turned the corner. And indeed he had.
But he turned the corner right back in the most important of times.
*********************************************************************
My politics at the aggregate level is decidedly leftist with crusian nationalist overtones, and a boggsian belief in grassroots organized democracy.
My politics at the individual level? You've got to do the work. You've got to be responsible. An Ancient saying goes something like this: Strive for excellence in all you do, that no fault may be found in your character. Damn right we don't need to "act right" to get our rights guarenteed by the Constitution. But I'll be damned if you're going to be a decent organizer if you don't know a damn thing about showing up to work on time every day. If you don't know anything about the idea of seeing something through beginning to end whether you like it or not.
Here is where Rasheed's breakdown in game 5 was troubling to me. What he--and so many like him--have to somehow do is take the pinpricks and jabs of the moment, and somehow rise above them to deal with the pinpricks from a better place. There's nothing he can do about the refs during the course of the game. All he can do is play his game.
That lesson is probably the most radical--in that it is the most fundamental--to learn.
The Pistons have one, maybe two more games for Wallace to get it this season. But the joy and pain of organized sports is its never ending nature. He learns it now...only to emerge the next day to relearn it.
What would Ralph Dub have said about Nash winning the league MVP? I can't say that I know the answer to that, but I can say that it would have been something that has not blessed the back pages since the announcement. I think Nash probably had more of a singular impact on the regular season (in terms of wins) than any of the player in the league. In fact, I think it's a bit of BS to argue for Shaq when we all know damn well he doesn't even do the regular season anymore.
Nash's award does not suggest he is the best player or point in the NBA, the Western Conference, or even in the city of Phoenix. Last time I checked, Kevin Johnson was still in the area and Joe Johnson was still in the locker room. Paul Westphal might still be around. Nonetheless, Nash's energy, movement and tenacity allowed the young guns to flex on those old cats in the West. He brings value as a penetrator, perimeter shooter, interior passer and leader of the break. For Detroit heads like LKS who grew up with Isiah Lord Thomas, this is hardly worth mentioning.
The playoffs, as "Zeke" proved, are a different story. Nash is still a little light in the ass to be running around in May and June. So, as great as Nash was in the regular season, the calendar suggest a turn may be afoot. We'll see if he's the real deal.
I'm watching the NBA Playoffs, and I'm hearing this voice during the commercials talking about what the various teams and players bring to the table. I realize it's Coach K from Duke and he's shilling for American Express. It's all good, but I'm trying to figure out something. When was the last time we heard a college baseball coach talking as a voice of authority about a major league baseball squad? I'm firmly convinced that the entire notion of a "pure" college game juxtaposed against a "lazy" pro game is a myth. It sells tickets for a weaker product--I can understand why Duke alumni might want to watch them play from afar but not someone from Whittier--and ensures high ratings for the March college tournament.
I've followed Rex Chapman since he was a McDonald's all star. Could jump out of the gym, and had a real nice stroke. Ended up coming out a couple of years early and being drafted by the Charlotte Hornets. When Magic announced that he had HIV/AIDS and was retiring, Chapman was one of the first people to step up with loot and with support. I'm not sure what provoked his statemenets on UK's stance towards his inter-racial dating, but they were interesting. What jumped out at me was when he talked about then vs. now. "I don't know how it is now, but that's how it was twenty years ago."
I did the math quickly in my head.
Twenty years. DAMN. That went by quick.
So quick that I wouldn't be surprised if things haven't changed all that much.
I was listening to the Kojo Nnamdi Show today, and part of the discussion centered on African American sports preferences. An old head like Gerald Early loves baseball like it was his second wife. But for a guy like me? I'm down with baseball when the Tigers are doing work. I keep up with them enough to have been happy that Alan Trammel, Lance Parrish, and Kirk Gibson were brought back into the fold, but I don't live and breathe baseball.
I live and breathe basketball. When I'm not thinking about writing, or researching, or writing? I'm thinking about a crossover. A jumpshot. A behind the back look off bounce pass on the break. And truth be told? I can't play. I play well enough to hold my own, but I can count the number of times I've been in the zone during a pickup game on one hand with two fingers lopped off. And I'm not alone. Starting with my generation I think, blacks have turned their backs on baseball.
Why?
One of the guys on Nnamdi's show made "the bling" argument. Black kids are transfixed by the dream of getting paid. Of getting on ESPN Sportscenter. Of being in the slam dunk contest.
I don't buy this. I called in for the better part of a half hour trying to smack some sense in them fools. NO one chooses basketball because of the promise of loot. After you CHOOSE basketball, and get good at it, you might try harder because you think you can make loot later down the line...but you don't pick up a rock at 6 and make a decision like that.
For me what looms large are three things: the first is the dearth of urban baseball diamonds. When cities started getting their budgets hamstrung, the first thing they cut was parks and rec. It's easier finding a Sharper Image within Detroit's borders than it is finding a nice serviceable baseball diamond. If you don't already have a group of baseball hardheads who are willing to dive through broken glass to snag grounders, nobody's going to pick up the game when the fields suck. The second? Getting 6 people to play three on three, 10 people to play five on five is easy.
Try getting 18 to play a pickup game of baseball. Who just happen to have gloves on them. Ain't happening. You can't find those types of numbers in the city anymore. Hell, how many times have we heard stories about pros practicing by themselves imagining themselves as Jordan, or Dr. J? Magic used to play one on NONE imagining he was Julius Erving taking the last shot. Do that with a baseball why don't you?
The third? The lack of a serviceable Little League infrastructure that can expose people to the nuances of the game. The reason why Detroit, Flint and Saginaw produce ballers left and right is because a dedicated basketball infrastructure exists that identifies and trains talent. It wasn't uncommon to see Isiah, Derrick Coleman, Chris Webber, all playing ball at Saint Cecilia during the summers.
Nowhere in this model does "bling" play a role. Kids don't make decisions on what to play based on potential income. And the thing is, if we were talking about white kids, I don't think anyone would make that type of argument. If the bling model held fast, then wouldn't white kids be moving away from the game too? Sheesh.
For me, Jelani Cobb, and Avery Tooley, not a damn week goes by when something doesn't happen and we're like "damn. I wish Wiley was here."
I think I'ma add a new category. Call it Wiley.
So nowadays damn near the only thing that keeps me watching television is Pro Basketball. Not college basketball (when was the last time YOU watched a college baseball game?). Pro. And for the umpteenth time last night's Dallas vs. Houston matchup had me crying out to the gods to bring Ralph Wiley back.
Of course my prayers weren't answered.
Well...not all the way.
If T-Mac isn't the Kwisatz Haderach I don't know who is.
I'm watching the NFL Draft while waiting for the NBA Playoffs to draft. Chicago's on the clock and they select Cedric Benson out of Texas.
Scroll down to see the photo.
When they draft him, he's crying tears of joy. The announcers are talking about the passion they see in his eyes, the sign of a sure winner. Then they flash to a couple of Texas highlights.
Then I notice the second thing--he had dreads in undergrad, but doesn't have them now. Why?
They cut to an interview with Susan Kolber (used to be "Suzy" but she chopped that I guess, for good reason). I like Kolber, but I didn't expect anything more than a perfunctory interview. She asked him the standard question "How do you feel?" And he responds noting that it's been a long road for him, given the "Ricky" stuff.
Ricky Williams was also a star Texas running back, with dreads. Has had a history of problems--has had a hard time fitting into the NFL culture more than anything else. So Kolber pushes him on it, and asks him why he cut his dreads off. Benson noted that he wanted a "fresh start" with a nice "clean cut" that could look "businesslike." But even that didn't seem to be enough for the coaches. From jump, during workouts, during interviews with various squads, they treated him like he was a boy, then a piece of meat, then a shiftless bum. We all know where those discussions were coming from. I'm willing to bet that the #1 pick (quarterback out of Utah) didn't undergo similar treatment.
After the interview was over, the commentators swiftly moved on.
Jermaine O' Neal asked whether race had something to do with the desire to add an age limit to the NBA. Jason Whitlock says that it's all business...his post is too idiotic to link to. Find it if you want. I just want to take a look at two paragraphs:
No, it's not. It's business. Despite James' success, and the fact that seven strait-outta-hi-skool players earned spots in the NBA All-Star Game, the influx of unprepared teenage ballers has been bad for the NBA. The growth value of NBA franchises is not keeping pace with NFL and MLB franchises. The league isn't as important as it once was, and Stern is trying to head off a tidal wave of negative publicity directed at the league.
Statement: The influx of unprepared teenage ballers has been bad for the NBA.
How many teenage ballers have entered the league? When he says they are "unprepared" exactly what does he mean? Is Stoudemire unprepared? James? Was Kobe unprepared? Garnett?
Then he says that this group has been "bad for the NBA." How? Here's where the next paragraph comes in:
Fans don't enjoy the game the way they used to, and they're becoming more and more hostile toward the players. O'Neal has a $100-million contract. In his mind he's a huge star. He has no clue how much more of a star he would be had he spent two or three years in college being hyped up by Dick Vitale, Billy Packer, Jay Bilas, Digger Phelps and Clark Kellogg. O'Neal spent his college years sitting on the Portland bench, collecting a fat check. That was good for Jermaine O'Neal. It was not good for the NBA.
Statement:Fans don't enjoy the game the way they used to, and they're becoming more and more hostile towards the players.
Ok. How are you defining "enjoying the game?" Is it by seats in the stadium? By ratings? By the purchase of jerseys? What? They're becoming more hostile towards the players? How? By what measure?
Then comes the kicker--O'Neal's sitting on the bench was good for him...but he SHOULD'VE been in college.
Whitlock's column consists of a bunch of implied causal statements, with absolutely no attempt to actually show the linkages between high school aged ballers and the problems he notes. Hell, last I heard Ron Artest actually WENT to school. Damn I wish Ralph Wiley were here.
Jason Whitlock goes off on Chris Webber again. Basic argument? That if Webber would've just stayed in the low-post and did the low-post thing he'd be the best power forward ever. Whitlock has some history with Webber, having covered him for the Ann Arbor News some 13 years ago.
I have some history with Webber too, having known him indirectly since he was in the eighth grade. And I was at Michigan during the Fab Five years....before the Fab Five years...and AFTER the Fab Five years. Whitlock's piece bears reading not just for the mistakes of analysis he makes about Webber. Let's be clear, Whitlock is no Ralph Wiley. But I think it says a lot about the three modern meanings of discipline, and the role they have to play in black male lives.
A passage:
Chris Webber had the potential to become the best power forward the game has ever seen. He could've been as reliable in the low post as Kevin McHale, as consistent and relentless as The Mailman, as immovable as Wes Unseld. He could've been a terrific last line of defense.Instead, C-Webb focused on redefining the position. C-Webb wanted to do a little bit of everything -- shoot the 3, lead the break, dish the ball behind his back and avoid the daily bump and grind of typical low-post play.
This exact same argument was made about another Detroit product 7-10 years ago--Derrick Coleman. Coleman was the first modern day power forward ("4") to have a handle and court vision good enough to theoretically run point ("1"), and range good enough to take three point shots from outside the key. The argument was that he was too undisciplined to move straight to the post and STAY THERE. He was also thought of as being too ghetto as well. Coleman and Webber, both brought up playing summer ball at St. Cecelia's against everyone from Isiah to Magic to Ice even, were basketball visionaries. Straight up. "C-Webb focused on REDEFINING THE POSITION."
Then the stats:
C-Webb is no flop. In 12 seasons, he's averaged 22 points, 10 rebounds and 4.5 assists. When he's been healthy, he's been an NBA All-Star. In 2000-01, he made a strong run at league MVP.
There aren't that many players PERIOD who will have stat lines like that over the course of ONE year much less twelve. The stats lie sometimes. I don't think they're lying now. Whitlock notes that he's moved three times (technically four counting the draft to Orlando). This is true...but with both moves the team trading him suffered more than he did (Golden State has NEVER recovered...Washington only recovered THIS year).
But for Whitlock this critical context doesn't matter half as much as Webber's desire to "keep it real."
Webber wanted desperately then to be Jalen Rose, a player with half of Webber's potential and polish. Webber loved the fact that Rose was from Detroit's mean streets. Webber's parents, a factory worker and a school teacher, had placed him in a pricey, predominantly-white private high school.Webber rebelled by idolizing Rose. It was as if Webber was embarrassed that he'd come from a solid two-parent home. Rose was never a bad guy. He was just "city" and cool.
From sports columnist to couch potato psychoanalysis. Doesn't skip a beat. What exactly is he basing this on? Rose came from the best basketball program in the state of Michigan. If playing ball is WHAT YOU DO, wouldn't YOU prefer to come from a ball playing program rather than a prep school?
Discipline. A branch of knowledge or teaching.
Discipline. Controlled behavior resulting from disciplinary training; self-control.
Discipline. Punishment intended to correct or train.
Basically, Whitlock wishes to discipline Webber for extending a discipline while not exemplifying discipline.
I think many black men and women in the professions find themselves having more skills than the boxes they are placed in. Cobb is a tech guy. Writes code for a living if I recall. But he's also a poet, a helluva writer, and a musician. One of my best friends is a trained physiologist, but knows egyptian history and spirituality better than any professional in that field that I have encountered. I just hung out last night with a couple of my boys from undergrad. One is an MD/MBA who also makes music. The other is a consultant with the government who is an international DJ and a producer.
The Eurocentric word for this is "Renaissance Men." I'd just call them Robesonians. At some point in their careers they had to make a choice. Either be REALLY good at ONE thing....or try to be good in number of different things. The first thing can place them at the top of a very narrow field during a thin slice of time. That second thing? Good question. They won't be valorized within the discipline (if that matters to them) because they don't work within its confines. And the new discipline won't congeal until after they're gone...so no props there either. But if they exert enough discipline to become good in a range of things, they are then able to escape discipline from people who wouldn't know their ass if it were handed to them. The verdict is still out on whether Webber will get a ring, much less make it to the NBA Hall of Fame. But I know there are at least a few 6'9+ ball players (KG anyone? Sheed?) who owe their ability to be who they are to people like Chris who paved the way.
For those of us on the Robeson path, perhaps this is all we can ask for....while little men with aspirations to narrow greatness snipe from the sidelines.
Every now and then something happens in the sports world that causes me to reflect on what Ralph Wiley would say if he'd been here.
Last week, ESPN began airing spots in commemoration of Black History Month. The first spot I saw had Queen Latifah talking about the 1968 Olympic protest of Tommie Smith and John Carlos. In order to protest the treatment of African Americans, Latifah noted, Smith and Carlos raised "black love fists."
What the *!&% ??
Black LOVE fists?
Do a google search on Tommie Smith and 1968. Is there ANY mention of "black love"? I know that we've got a long way to go. I know that Aberbach and Walker showed in their 1970 piece "The Meaning of Black Power" that whites and blacks have very different conceptions of the term.
But here we are 37 years later, and we're still changing history to soothe supposedly troubled souls. And Latifah bought into it.
.....
Spring training is about to begin, and already the call has been made to Bonds to quit. Nothing like sour grapes. You want him to quit? Remove the record of every major league player that played before blacks were allowed in the majors.
A young black male has three times better chance to become a general in the U.S. Army than he does a head football coach for a Division I-A school. He has a better chance at becoming president of a Fortune 500 company than he does leading a college football team onto the field.
More here.
Kellen Winslow's path is the one to take. Don't have your kids play where they can't coach.
Here, we emphasize social power...but changing the rules to make decisions a bit more open definitely doesn't hurt.