| Defining NBA Greatness Authored by Jared Cantin - April 1, 2007 - 5:51 pm
| Current Featured Columns | | Home Sour Home? Baron Davis realizes that the burden is on him to lead the Clippers and is remaining patient despite the rough start.
Little Jack Or Baby Jack, Warriors Better With MorrowWhen it comes to salaries, the Warriors are similar to Costanza in that they are 'extremely careful' with it. It is a good thing they keep finding undrafted Anthony Morrows.
 |
Jazz Find Needed Solace at Home
What is it about this Jazz team that makes it so difficult to win on the road?
|
 |
The Rules Of Disengagement
Stephon Marbury has done nothing to breach a contract that was intended to last until June 30, 2009. Until that date arrives, a date the Knicks' have boldly circled, Marbury has every right to collect his paycheck.
|
 |
Back Down To Earth
Things weren't supposed to be so positive for the Pacers at the start of the season, which explains why a brief bout of optimism ended on Saturday when they suffered their second-straight loss.
|
|
More from RealGM's Columnists
|
| |
The above declarations could be properly categorized as brazen, at minimum. And if you only read the first paragraph of this article, I hope you litter my e-mail box with obscenities and blunt reality checks. (Although I prefer obscenities – they’re more colorful.) I don’t expect this article to make me very popular, especially if a few self-proclaimed ‘Great-Players’ stumble across it, but it has to be written.
The Modern Superstar
The NBA Superstar is unlike any other, in any other sport. In football, a superstar is truly at the mercy of his team. Players play only offense or defense, and eleven men work in unison through complexly designed plays orchestrated by several football masterminds. In baseball, a player takes but one-ninth of a teams at-bats, and covers only one region of a large playing surface. In some instances, players play only one of every five games, or participate only on offense or defense. In hockey, line shifts make for shorter playing stints, and players thus impact the game for less than half the game time. Basketball, more so than any other, is a superstar’s league.
The NBA superstar has the opportunity to impact the game on both offense and defense, for a majority of the game time. He plays anywhere from 35-40 minutes out of an available 48. He plays offense and defense. Superstars can account for as much as 40% of a team’s offensive production, and can take an even larger percentage of the team’s shots. An NBA superstar, unlike Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, can directly face, contest, defend, and challenge an opposing superstar in some manner. As such, an NBA superstar has more control over the game than any other sport, and thus has the greatest ability to impact its outcome. If this is the case, than one would think a true NBA superstar could make his team a winner regardless of his supporting cast.
Under the Bus
The attitude of many modern NBA superstar runs directly contrary to my above theory. Modern, self-proclaimed ‘great players’, do not feel it is their duty and obligation to make their team successful, they instead feel it is a duty owed them to have a team that can carry them to success. In a recent March 30th Boston Globe article written by Jackie MacMullan, Paul Pierce made the following declaration in reference to his teams struggles:
“It's definitely another year gone by for me. It's another year we don't get into the postseason. It's another year I don't get recognized for the things I do. I'm the classic case of a great player on a bad team, and it stinks.”
This is the classic case of a “great player” throwing his teammates under the bus, not of one on a bad team. Anywhere other than the land of NBA superstardom, is this acceptable? Could I walk through the cubefarm at my office and say, “We would have met our quarter goals if you guys didn’t suck!” Would that be the thing for a great team player to say? Would that make me a leader? Would that make my younger coworkers want to improve with me?
To confirm that this was not entirely out of context or misinterpreted, Pierce made sure he completely expressed himself when he went on to say:
“I want to be recognized for what I've accomplished. That may sound selfish, but I've sacrificed a lot. I want to win. That's all I want. Most great players are selfish… We're not on a winning team, and as long as that's true, I don't get recognized as one of the top players in the league. We're never on TV. I wasn't part of the All-Star Game [this season]. We just don't get the benefit of so many other things that winning teams get.”
That quote included more I’s than a Lasik convention. Forgive me if my proverbial river of tears is not imminent, but Paul Pierce signed a big-dollar extension with the Celtics knowing the situation, and knowing that only the Celtics could give him top dollar. Paul, you have made your bed, now lie in it, quietly. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more top NBA talent declare that they want to win, instead of doing what is absolutely necessary to win. The issue is not that Paul Pierce does not want to win, he does, but there are three problems with his case, and that of players like Garnett, Iverson, and Gasol, other ‘Great Players’, who have bandied about the idea of moving on to a team with, “A better chance to win.”
The first problem is that these players’ exorbitant salaries make it difficult for a team to put superior talent around them in the salary cap era. Twenty million dollars is a large chunk of a fifty-three million dollar salary cap. The second problem is that these players do not want to take pay cuts to ensure they are on competitive teams. Do I blame them? No. I like money, its crisp, smells nice, sometimes it’s shiny, you can give it to people for nice stuff, and it makes people really like you. However, if a player in his prime truly put winning first, then all of these ‘great players’ wouldn’t be losing while collecting maximum dollar contracts. The third problem is in my opinion, the crux of this issue. If great players are losing and not making the playoffs, it is not the supporting cast that is the primary problem. It is the definition of the term ‘Great Player’ that needs restructuring.
The Great Player
At some point along the road, the term ‘Great Player’ was modified to mean ‘Maximum Contract’, or ‘Stat Producer’. However, a quick reflection of six widely regarded great players will demonstrate that the problem may not be the modern great player’s supporting cast, but may instead be that the aforementioned self-proclaimed great players of today are simply not great.
Seasons, Playoff Appearances, All-Star Games, Playoff Appearance %
Michael Jordan: 15, 13, 13, 87%
Magic Johnson: 13, 13, 11, 100%
Larry Bird: 13, 12, 10, 92%
Wilt Chamberlain: 14, 13, 13, 93%
Bill Russell: 13, 13, 12, 100%
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 20, 18, 18, 90%
Totals: 88, 82, 77, 93%
The figures above are fairly suggestive, although I concede that many of the players were the beneficiaries of strong supporting casts for much of their careers. That begs the question, were their supporting casts that great, for that long, that consistently, or were these players’ unique talents enough to illicit the best from their teammates, to create a winning result regardless of their team? There is no contesting the fact that great teams win championships, but the fact is, truly great players are enough to catapult their teams into the playoffs over ninety percent of the time, and the above figures do not even consider injuries, health issues, or time away from the game. The fact is, truly great players can carry their team to the playoffs.
In addition to great players winning, is the fact that great players simply are great; they aren’t inclined to feel the need to state their greatness, or belittle their teammates for it to be so. Simple observation told you that Magic, Bird, and Jordan were great. Pierce’s declarations make one winder if it is so, or if he is selling us on the idea out of his own doubts.
Conclusions
There are certainly great players in this era. Tim Duncan, Shaquile O’Neal, and Dirk Nowitzki’s (borderline) teams have made the playoffs at over a 90% clip in their careers combined. Even Kevin Garnett, who is on the fence under this analysis, has carried questionable teams to the playoffs about 73% of the time since entering the league. The purpose of this article in not to denigrate Pierce, or players of his level as bad players, it is simply to point out the hypocrisy of the notion that great players are entitled to great teams. It is the reverse in fact. Great players should make teams great.
Paul Pierce is a very good player. In the right situation he could find great success in the NBA. Unfortunately, he is not a great player, because great players are almost impossible to come by, and when a team is lucky enough, they are competitive, period. (See Shaq this year)
And Paul, if I ever do get that sports writing career I previously declared I so strongly deserve, I won’t be expecting you to return my calls.
You can send all obscenities to Jared at jcanti71@yahoo.com |
