We're down to the last game of the 2007 regular season, so there's not much to talk about that hasn't already been beaten to death. The playoff match ups have yet to be set, and I feel that this is the perfect time to take a step back and reflect on my personal history, giving myself a break before I dive head first into playoff basketball - a moment of reflection, if you will.
It is no secret that, despite the long odds against it, I would very much like to write officially for the Phoenix Suns. My derision for professional sports writers is well documented on the azcentral Suns article message boards, and I fancy myself as the antidote to the bland, repetitive reporting contained therein. I prefer the more rich, wry, personal story-telling style of writers such as Bill Simmons to the dry and lifeless commentary found in most sports journalism. Writing shouldn't be a job, rather a recording of history and personal perception that gives the story of the day a life of its own, allowing a reader 20 years from now to relive the emotion and relevance of the events, if only through the heart and eyes of someone who was there.
I have been a writer since the second grade, when the assignment was to make up a story involving a space ship landing in the school's playground. Now, to be honest, I have never been able to create fantasy, even as a child with an overactive imagination. Everything I did then always had to be grounded in reality in some significant manner because I wanted to believe that "this could happen," and that quality holds to this day. So I wrote a story about the space shuttle landing (I never said the reality was absolute), and the astronauts giving us all an individual tour. All the other kids told about Martians and flying saucers, and I came up with humans and the space shuttle. To be fair, this was during the early days of the shuttle program, so it's safe to say that my creativity was, always has been, and always will be shaped by actual events in some way.
I never saw myself as a professional writer in my early days, nor was I ever really encouraged to be one. It just seemed like a novelty act, I guess. So my interests turned elsewhere.
I was small for my age growing up. Under-sized and underweight, people thought I was in fourth grade even as I transitioned into junior high. Not surprisingly, I was the stereotypically last kid chosen for team sports. But many a sixth grader was embarrassed to see a ball sailing over their heads during kick ball after the chorus of "easy out! easy out!" when it was my turn at the plate. Same thing with soft ball. I didn't always make contact, but when I did, there were plenty of kids hauling ass to the outfield to retrieve an unexpectedly well-hit line drive while I was running as fast as my little legs would carry me to second base.
Then there was basketball. God, I loved playing basketball, even if I didn't understand why. The ball was so big in my hands, I became a master of the "granny shot," which again yielded results that left bigger kids stunned. I just seemed always to have a knack of accomplishing feats beyond my apparent capabilities. And I was the king of hustle. I was the kid racing out of bounds for a loose ball, jumping in the air to catch it and toss it back to a teammate in one quick motion. I surprised myself on several occasions because these were the kinds of acts that the little guy wasn't supposed to do. I've always been an athlete, I've just never had the body.
So when high school came, I didn't even think about sports. I didn't even want to take regular P.E. because I always ended up in the class with the jocks, and they just lifted the curve well beyond my reach. I finally grew to a normal height my junior year (I didn't hit 5' until the end of my freshman year), but by that time the lines were drawn, and I was on the outside looking for something of my own. That's when I found dance. To this day, I don't know how my sister convinced me to do it, but I had to take one more year of P.E., and I wasn't about to run the track in 110 degree weather. So to dance I went, and in dance I stayed - for the next 16 years.
I won't get into all the gory details, but I turned out to be really good at it. So good that I eventually became a teacher and assistant director of the studio I attended. I learned more about the human body and how it works than anyone outside of professional medicine should ever know.
Somewhere in the middle of all this learning, though, the Suns had an incredible postseason run in which they made it to the NBA Finals for the first time in 17 years. I had never gotten into watching sports on television back then, but the whole Valley got swept up in Suns fever that year, and I was one of the hapless victims. I've been a die hard fan ever since, so much so that I decided that I wanted to learn how to play again. The funny thing about being a dancer is that it gave me an insight to the nuances of the game that a lot of people don't seem to appreciate. To me, there is nothing more beautiful in all of sports than a well-executed fast break (except maybe a split-finger fastball with a hard bite).
So to basketball I returned. February 1995, I bought myself a backyard hoop and new Spalding outdoor ball, and I went to work on my jump shot. I studied the best - Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Charles Barkley, Danny Ainge - so I had no shortage of learning tools to nail down my mechanics. After two months of taking dozens, if not HUNDREDS, of jumpers every day, I could hit from anywhere, wing to wing up to 20 feet out. I practiced coming off screens, bouncing the ball to myself for a quick catch-and-shoot. I worked on a right handed baby hook, flashing across the lane and banking it in every time. I even worked on my version of Michael Jordan's falling-away-sideways shot that was so hard to time, but so satisfying to nail.
Left-handed, right-handed...you name it, I could splash the net. I used my knowledge of the human body to perfect my mechanics, releasing softly at the peak of a 24-inch standing vertical that left me hanging in the air for what seemed like ten seconds at a time. In two months, I had turned myself into one hell of an accurate shooter...then I moved to Chicago. It seems that I took the predictable weather and stagnant air for granted, because once I got to the WINDY city, I couldn't hit the broad side of a fat lady.
Nonetheless, my basketball education continued on the playgrounds of Chicago's south side (in the white neighborhoods, of course). I learned that having a defender in your grill sure does make getting a shot off more difficult, and the wind played cruel tricks on the rare occasions I found myself open. So I did what I always did when I couldn't do what I wanted to do. I learned how to do something else. I started playing a new position. I went from shooting guard to point guard in one afternoon of humiliation and frustration.
My friend, Tony, his 14 year old brother-in-law, Ricky, and I made it a point to play ball three or four times a month, depending on the weather. We played on good days, of which there were few, and even on some wet and windy days just to get out of the house. Our usual playground was a park about a mile and a half from U.S. Cellular field, where the White Sox play. It was everything that I was not used to - uneven court that held the rain water in the most inappropriate places, tight rims with chain-linked nets, one of which was hanging precariously off half the rim, and the good backboard stood directly between us and the sun...when it shown.
It was tough, physical east coast style basketball, and the fact that their Bulls beat my Suns in the 1993 Finals was always a point of emphasis during every contest. "You're playing like the Suns in game 6, J!" "If that's how they play in Phoenix, it's no wonder we kicked your asses!" Ha ha ha.
It was spirited and intense, and the no-blood-no-foul rule applied. But it was fun, especially when I was the first to 21 after making five free throws in a row. Yes, I can still shoot. I never gained the quickness or explosiveness to blow by either one of them, but my dance background still made me the superior athlete. I was fast, agile, and in control, and my steady stream of soaring under-the-basket reverse lay ins were a constant source of ridicule as I "look like a dancer" whenever I flew from one side of the lane to the other, pausing in mid-air to turn and shoot. "CHINK!" That's how we play in Phoenix.
One particularly humid, partly cloudy day, we were shooting around preparing for our last game of cut throat when a group of kids showed up wanting to use the court. "We'll play you for the court," one of the older ones said. "That's OK," was Tony's reply, "we're just going to play one more, then we're outta here." Depending on the perspective, common sense either prevailed or failed as we decided that we may as well just play them, since we were leaving anyway. So it was the three of us, who had never played as a team before, playing three of them. By the looks of it, they were in high school, and I figured that we might show them a thing or two.
Five minutes later, they were up ten zip. Though we never asked, it was clear that these guys played together on their high school basketball team. Great. Their friends were laughing, they were just breezing by us, and Tony and I were too busy giving each other harsh looks for trying to shoot contested jumpers to get back on defense.
When I watched professional games on TV, I never could figure out why defenders never turned and ran or tried to grab a ball that flew over their heads on a fast break. Watching pass after pass sail effortlessly over my head before ending in a lay up, I thought to myself, "Why am I not reaching up to grab that ball? It's going right over me!" Then I realized how difficult it truly is to jump straight up while back pedalling at a near sprint.
We were getting our asses handed to us, and I had had enough. To the opposition's surprise, I called time out and gathered my troops. I heard them tell their friends on the baseline, mockingly, "They're probably calling a play."
No. I simply told Tony and Ricky that we were NOT going to get shut out. We were on the broken net, but the sun wasn't in our eyes, so there was going to be no excuse not to hit at least one shot. "I'm playing point. When I give you the ball, shoot it!" Time in.
I checked the ball at half court and walked it to the right wing. Tony and one of the kids were fighting for position at the free throw line, while Ricky and another kid were moving back and forth in the left corner behind them. My defender slacked off, practically daring me to shoot from 15 feet. So I did. "Chink."
"Nice shot," he said with genuine surprise and admiration. Now it was a different game. The three of us breathed a collective sigh of relief, comforted by the fact that we weren't going down without a fight. We relaxed, and suddenly we played as a team. I brought the ball up court, and when one of my guys broke free, I got them the ball. When they didn't, they screened for me and I shot it. We missed some, and we made some. So did the other team. I think the final score was 21-10, but we had certainly saved face and earned a little respect.
On the drive home, Tony said with a certain reverence, "THAT'S how we play ball in Chicago!"
And I said, "Yeah, but it was Phoenix that kept us from being shut out."
Touche.
It doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of the world and all its intricacies, I suppose. But a sweetly satisfying dignity accompanies an event that highlights an individual's hidden skills, regardless of the meaning the circumstance holds for anyone else. The talent has always been there, waiting for an opportunity to break free and prove its worth...for whatever it's worth. And it feels good to know that others got a chance to see it, however briefly, and recognize that there is more to this under-sized, underweight closet athlete than meets the untrained eye. Given the opportunity, I could do whatever I damn well want.
Maybe I should become a writer for the Phoenix Suns.
April 17, 2007
April 16, 2007
Controversy? Me?
I am not one who thrives on controversy. I don't believe that attention should be given more to stories and events that ruffle the feathers of a few to the point that the whole bird is squawking. I prefer to have the information presented to me, without the input of pundits and "experts", whose opinions have a nasty habit of clouding one's own perceptions. In short - I want facts, not opinions.
At the risk of turning into a hypocrite, I feel compelled to throw in my two and three quarter cents regarding race in athletics. From the South Carolina flag controversy to CBS firing Don Imus, it seems that politics is interfering with life and sports in such a way that I can't even watch NASCAR -not because it's traditionally a "redneck sport", but because I'm sick of the word "race".
Right now I wonder why anyone is piling more manure on this molehill of an issue.
For the record, yes, I am white. No, I do not know what it is like to be a black American. Those facts in and of themselves, however, do not invalidate my opinions. I am also a very intelligent individual who has lived in several "multicultural" neighborhoods and who has travelled outside my own country. I have a relatively unique world perspective. That fact in and of itself, however, does not validate my opinions. I make no pretenses either way. I just call it like I see it.
Enough set up, let's get into the conflict. Act II.
As reported on ESPN's Outside the Lines, South Carolina football coach Steve Spurrier made some unsolicited comments regarding the Confederate flag.
Anyone unaware of the South Carolina Confederate flag controversy should look here. If you add "NCAA" to the end of that search bar, you'll see how ugly it truly gets. Basically, the NCAA banned postseason play in the state of South Carolina until all Confederate flags are gone.
On one side, there is a proud people who feel that history is best served by preserving and admiring a major part of their cultural identity. On the other side, there is a proud people who feel that history is best served by removing and forgetting a major part of their cultural identity.
The flag proponents say that the flag represents the soldiers who fought and died for their country under it. The opponents say that it is a symbol of slavery.
Now, I could be mistaken on this, so don't sue me if this proves to be inaccurate. But it seems to me that the other flag - the Stars and Stripes - has been flying over this country in one manifestation or another ever since Betsy Ross was commissioned to construct something that would inspire Francis Scott Key to write a poem that would become our national anthem. It is the flag that served as the national symbol when slavery was OK even in the northern states. Subsequently, it was the flag that waved over a land of over 100 years of post-Civil War segregation, subjugation, murder, rape, torture, and denial of blacks, as well as their citizenship and equality.
So, the way it's been presented to me, the argument goes like this...
The Ku Klux Klan uses the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate, therefore the flag symbolizes all that is wrong with this country.
The U.S. government uses the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of freedom and equality, despite its overall actions to the contrary, therefore that flag symbolizes all that is great about this country.
Again, that's MY take. The truth is, no one ever brings up the Stars and Stripes flag in these arguments - probably for that very reason. It would expose the hypocrisy and ignorance of the entire anti-Confederate argument. Not that the NAACP doesn't find a way to do that, anyway.
I don't have a direct quote because I don't have the OTL video for the segment, but a prominent member of the NAACP suggested that students on South Carolina school campuses aren't as outraged because they're used to seeing the flags. According to the gentleman, "They don't know any better," and it's up to others to tell these students better. In other words, 'these kids don't associate the Confederate flag with slavery, so we have to make them in order to perpetuate this conflict'.
Again, that's just my interpretation.
So who's to blame for the controversy? Is it the KKK for using the Stars and Bars as their personal calling card? Is it the southerners who maintain the flag's pride and dignity despite it's bastardization? Or is it the people who simply refuse to let it go?
I'll admit, I buy into the argument that the flag represents something good. I believe that the Confederacy was right in principle, if not in practice. The Federal government has usurped so much power from the States, that we've become dependent on the Federal for everything. That's exactly what the Confederates were trying to stop. (Slavery was just the flint spark that lit the powder keg.) And the fact that thousands of men fought and died for their principles should be commended. After all, isn't that what the government is asking kids to do to this day? Why deny those men their honor on the basis of dishonorable men who simply are not representative of an entire ideal?
But that's what this country has turned into. A nation of presumed individualism that has become dependent on this ideal that people should act in the most inoffensive manner so that we can coexist as a nation. Think about the irony for a moment - individuals conducting themselves in a group manner. Worse, people seem to be confusing groups with individuals. That is to say, everyone in a group is expected to act the same, therefore the group is representative of the individual just as the individual is representative of the group.
It just doesn't work that way. As much as the idealists (really, people who want everyone else to think like they do) would like everyone to get along and share the same ideals, if not the same beliefs, it just doesn't happen. Hell, Christians can't even agree on a belief system. And what happens when one member of a belief system disagrees with the system itself?
CONTROVERSY!
Controversy sells newspapers and brings the spotlight of attention on those who would otherwise go unnoticed. Like the Rutgers Scarlet Knights second place basketball team. No one remembers the losers of the big game, unless something incredibly stupid or spectacular (or spectacularly stupid) happens. In this case, it DID! Thank you, Don Imus.
By now, we've all heard the comments he made days after the Rutgers women lost in the NCAA tournament. It was sickening, it was stupid, and it was unwarranted, but it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone. We are talking about talk radio - the bastion of bigotry, sexism, and religious intolerance. Even aside from that fact of free-to-air life, this should not have come as a shock to anyone.
I ask again, whose fault is it, really?
Is it the old, rich, white bigot? Is it the network that employs him? Or is it the legions of black "artists" from whom Imus ever got the idea to string those words together?
What old white person speaks like that?
Yes, there is a certain amount of hatred and/or ignorance that underlies his comments. Yes, he claims that he simply made a bad joke. But "nappy-headed hos"? Where was the NAACP's outrage with John Singleton? After all, he is a black man that is presumably representative of the so-called race, isn't he? Why should he be exempt from his use of such hateful language in his movies when it so clearly influences white culture?
There is a small history of black leaders condemning rap music for its inherent misogyny and liberal use of the word "nigger". But usually the argument against the music (and black comedians, for that matter) is quashed because the people using the language are "keeping it real" or "expressing themselves the only way they know how". Whatever. I'm not a big fan of double standards, and I'll never understand why groups that praise black performing artists for their representation of the culture as a whole will just as quickly condemn a white person for repeating what they hear. And to get someone who is guilty of perpetuating or condoning a double standard to acknowledge it is like pulling teeth with Teflon tweezers. I won't even go there, except to throw it out there for argument's sake. This is about accountability.
Too many times we have seen white people sacrificed as scapegoats for the behaviour of those who are not white. I acknowledge that the United States has a history of racism, and I believe that we still have a long way to go in making reparations for it. But what's the sense in ripping out the stitches to remind us that we cut them? When does the hurt stop and the healing begin?
I know that my opinions sound racially driven, and in part they are. As I said, I am white. But that does not invalidate the argument that the recent history of racially charged negative behavior by white people can be traced directly to the actions of the victims of racism. We have been disarmed by programs and philosophies such as Affirmative Action, so why keep handing stupid people the bullets? You should know by now that some idiot out there is going to fire into the air aimlessly, and eventually someone is going to get hurt. Just ask the Scarlet Knights.
So it's my opinion that something needs to happen on both sides of the argument before any of this stops. Take care of your own before trying to deal with ours. That goes for the southerners who let the KKK get away with using their flag for despicable purposes, just as well as it goes for the NAACP for letting their own "race" create roadblocks to its own cultural reclamation.
At the risk of turning into a hypocrite, I feel compelled to throw in my two and three quarter cents regarding race in athletics. From the South Carolina flag controversy to CBS firing Don Imus, it seems that politics is interfering with life and sports in such a way that I can't even watch NASCAR -not because it's traditionally a "redneck sport", but because I'm sick of the word "race".
Right now I wonder why anyone is piling more manure on this molehill of an issue.
For the record, yes, I am white. No, I do not know what it is like to be a black American. Those facts in and of themselves, however, do not invalidate my opinions. I am also a very intelligent individual who has lived in several "multicultural" neighborhoods and who has travelled outside my own country. I have a relatively unique world perspective. That fact in and of itself, however, does not validate my opinions. I make no pretenses either way. I just call it like I see it.
Enough set up, let's get into the conflict. Act II.
As reported on ESPN's Outside the Lines, South Carolina football coach Steve Spurrier made some unsolicited comments regarding the Confederate flag.
"It was embarrassing last year when [game day commentators] were doing the Gameday, and some dude was waving that Confederate flag behind the TV screen. It's just embarrassing to me, to our team, our school, our state. That's my opinion."
Anyone unaware of the South Carolina Confederate flag controversy should look here. If you add "NCAA" to the end of that search bar, you'll see how ugly it truly gets. Basically, the NCAA banned postseason play in the state of South Carolina until all Confederate flags are gone.
On one side, there is a proud people who feel that history is best served by preserving and admiring a major part of their cultural identity. On the other side, there is a proud people who feel that history is best served by removing and forgetting a major part of their cultural identity.
The flag proponents say that the flag represents the soldiers who fought and died for their country under it. The opponents say that it is a symbol of slavery.
Now, I could be mistaken on this, so don't sue me if this proves to be inaccurate. But it seems to me that the other flag - the Stars and Stripes - has been flying over this country in one manifestation or another ever since Betsy Ross was commissioned to construct something that would inspire Francis Scott Key to write a poem that would become our national anthem. It is the flag that served as the national symbol when slavery was OK even in the northern states. Subsequently, it was the flag that waved over a land of over 100 years of post-Civil War segregation, subjugation, murder, rape, torture, and denial of blacks, as well as their citizenship and equality.
So, the way it's been presented to me, the argument goes like this...
The Ku Klux Klan uses the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate, therefore the flag symbolizes all that is wrong with this country.
The U.S. government uses the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of freedom and equality, despite its overall actions to the contrary, therefore that flag symbolizes all that is great about this country.
Again, that's MY take. The truth is, no one ever brings up the Stars and Stripes flag in these arguments - probably for that very reason. It would expose the hypocrisy and ignorance of the entire anti-Confederate argument. Not that the NAACP doesn't find a way to do that, anyway.
I don't have a direct quote because I don't have the OTL video for the segment, but a prominent member of the NAACP suggested that students on South Carolina school campuses aren't as outraged because they're used to seeing the flags. According to the gentleman, "They don't know any better," and it's up to others to tell these students better. In other words, 'these kids don't associate the Confederate flag with slavery, so we have to make them in order to perpetuate this conflict'.
Again, that's just my interpretation.
So who's to blame for the controversy? Is it the KKK for using the Stars and Bars as their personal calling card? Is it the southerners who maintain the flag's pride and dignity despite it's bastardization? Or is it the people who simply refuse to let it go?
I'll admit, I buy into the argument that the flag represents something good. I believe that the Confederacy was right in principle, if not in practice. The Federal government has usurped so much power from the States, that we've become dependent on the Federal for everything. That's exactly what the Confederates were trying to stop. (Slavery was just the flint spark that lit the powder keg.) And the fact that thousands of men fought and died for their principles should be commended. After all, isn't that what the government is asking kids to do to this day? Why deny those men their honor on the basis of dishonorable men who simply are not representative of an entire ideal?
But that's what this country has turned into. A nation of presumed individualism that has become dependent on this ideal that people should act in the most inoffensive manner so that we can coexist as a nation. Think about the irony for a moment - individuals conducting themselves in a group manner. Worse, people seem to be confusing groups with individuals. That is to say, everyone in a group is expected to act the same, therefore the group is representative of the individual just as the individual is representative of the group.
It just doesn't work that way. As much as the idealists (really, people who want everyone else to think like they do) would like everyone to get along and share the same ideals, if not the same beliefs, it just doesn't happen. Hell, Christians can't even agree on a belief system. And what happens when one member of a belief system disagrees with the system itself?
CONTROVERSY!
Controversy sells newspapers and brings the spotlight of attention on those who would otherwise go unnoticed. Like the Rutgers Scarlet Knights second place basketball team. No one remembers the losers of the big game, unless something incredibly stupid or spectacular (or spectacularly stupid) happens. In this case, it DID! Thank you, Don Imus.
By now, we've all heard the comments he made days after the Rutgers women lost in the NCAA tournament. It was sickening, it was stupid, and it was unwarranted, but it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone. We are talking about talk radio - the bastion of bigotry, sexism, and religious intolerance. Even aside from that fact of free-to-air life, this should not have come as a shock to anyone.
I ask again, whose fault is it, really?
Is it the old, rich, white bigot? Is it the network that employs him? Or is it the legions of black "artists" from whom Imus ever got the idea to string those words together?
What old white person speaks like that?
Yes, there is a certain amount of hatred and/or ignorance that underlies his comments. Yes, he claims that he simply made a bad joke. But "nappy-headed hos"? Where was the NAACP's outrage with John Singleton? After all, he is a black man that is presumably representative of the so-called race, isn't he? Why should he be exempt from his use of such hateful language in his movies when it so clearly influences white culture?
There is a small history of black leaders condemning rap music for its inherent misogyny and liberal use of the word "nigger". But usually the argument against the music (and black comedians, for that matter) is quashed because the people using the language are "keeping it real" or "expressing themselves the only way they know how". Whatever. I'm not a big fan of double standards, and I'll never understand why groups that praise black performing artists for their representation of the culture as a whole will just as quickly condemn a white person for repeating what they hear. And to get someone who is guilty of perpetuating or condoning a double standard to acknowledge it is like pulling teeth with Teflon tweezers. I won't even go there, except to throw it out there for argument's sake. This is about accountability.
Too many times we have seen white people sacrificed as scapegoats for the behaviour of those who are not white. I acknowledge that the United States has a history of racism, and I believe that we still have a long way to go in making reparations for it. But what's the sense in ripping out the stitches to remind us that we cut them? When does the hurt stop and the healing begin?
I know that my opinions sound racially driven, and in part they are. As I said, I am white. But that does not invalidate the argument that the recent history of racially charged negative behavior by white people can be traced directly to the actions of the victims of racism. We have been disarmed by programs and philosophies such as Affirmative Action, so why keep handing stupid people the bullets? You should know by now that some idiot out there is going to fire into the air aimlessly, and eventually someone is going to get hurt. Just ask the Scarlet Knights.
So it's my opinion that something needs to happen on both sides of the argument before any of this stops. Take care of your own before trying to deal with ours. That goes for the southerners who let the KKK get away with using their flag for despicable purposes, just as well as it goes for the NAACP for letting their own "race" create roadblocks to its own cultural reclamation.
April 15, 2007
KG, or Not KG?
It's an agonizing thought process - balancing talent and championship potential with red ink. Everything hinges on events yet to transpire.
Does Kevin Garnett want out of Minnesota? Of course not. He sees himself as the Timberwolves' version of his friend and idol, the late Kirby Puckett, sticking with the franchise that drafted him through a career roller coaster of tumult and success. He has never publicly spoken about leaving Minnesota, whether through his own desire or the team's. The closest we've come to knowing what is really brewing in that intense mind is the now-famous quote, "Thank God for opt-outs."
Kevin McHale has blown this one big time, and now he is left with one of two choices to appease the 7-foot MVP.
1. Retire unceremoniously, and let Fred Hoiberg clean up his mess, which would undoubtedly result in an off-season trade to bring in new younger talent to replace Garnett.
2. Get fired, and let Fred Hoiberg clean up his mess, which would undoubtedly result in an off-season trade to bring in new younger talent to replace Garnett.
Seriously, the Wolves have no options at this point. They crippled themselves with the Joe Smith fiasco, they let Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell walk all over them, and they have more holes to fill than one top ten draft pick this season can fill. Add to that their lack of trade commodities, and they are left with one scenario - trade the only player who has any value, and get a boat load of talent and draft picks in return.
Enter the Phoenix Suns.
There are a lot of "ifs" to reconcile before anyone can talk seriously about a Phoenix trade to pick up Minnesota's perennial All Star, All Defensive team member, and former league M.V.P., not the least of which regarding the league's luxury tax threshold. The Suns have been teetering the line for two years now, and Suns owner Robert Sarver has made it clear that he absolutely does NOT want to go there - with one caveat. If the Suns win the championship, it's hard not to look deeply at all options available to improve the team and keep its title hopes alive.
So if the Suns win the championship, Kevin Garnett can be one step closer to donning Purple and Orange.
But there is still more to it.
The Wolves need to rebuild, and to do that, they need draft picks. Now, and in the future, they need help from the college ranks. They need solid young players who have proved themselves, and they need to keep salaries relatively low in order to remain competitive for years to come.
Again - enter the Phoenix Suns...and another big IF.
If the Atlanta Hawks' recent tank-fest proves unsuccessful in terms of landing a top three pick in 2007, the Suns get that pick and put themselves in prime position to be a major cog within the off-season trade machine. Not only would they land anywhere from 4 to 7 in the draft, they also have Cleveland's (low to mid 20s) and their own (29). Three first round picks in the deepest draft of recent memory. That's one hell of a starting block for the trade season sprint.
Phoenix also has loads of cap-friendly contracts to play with. As always, number one on that list is Shawn Marion's max deal that has two years at $34.25 million left after this season ends. Compare that to Garnett's two years at $45 million, with the infamous opt-out after the 2008 season. Throw in Marcus Banks and a couple of those coveted draft slots, and the Suns are well within firing range of the 125% + 100k rule.
Not that he would have a choice in the matter, but would Marion go for it? Leave town to have a chance to prove his worth without the media distractions of a two-time M.V.P. and rising star? I'm sure he would, but I'm also sure that it would be nothing that he expected, and he would rue the day that he admitted as much to ESPN the Magazine. The grass is always greener, they say, and Minnesota is known more for its freezing winters than sprawling gardens.
It would be a hasty, ill-conceived move on the part of the Suns to pull a trigger on a Garnett for Marion deal. Why give up a player who meshes so well with this team simply on the basis that his salary does not? There are other ways, and Robert Sarver would have to bite the bullet that he might otherwise use to shoot himself in the foot.
The Suns will need to dump salary, regardless of the results of this postseason and whether or not they make a trade for Garnett. The payroll in Phoenix will be pushing the $77-78 million mark next season, and that's not counting the five roster spots the team has to fill, in accordance with the most recent collective bargaining agreement.
The odd thing about an NBA General Manager's job is that they constantly have to base their long-term goals on short-term expectations. They have to keep an eye on future free agent markets, draft classes, and trade possibilities, as well as all the salary implications that go with it - will their hands be financially tied in 3 years because of a deal they made last summer to win a championship this June?
It's a tough business, to be sure. So tough that the no-brainer signing of Boris Diaw to a $45 million contract last season is suddenly looking like the NBAPA coup of the new millennium, Kwame Brown and Michael Olawakandi notwithstanding. Reward a player for potential or one good year, and it could leave a franchise snake-bit for half a decade if the player doesn't pan out.
But I think that Diaw is a special case. He is the consummate team player, excellent passer from the high post, and has almost unparalleled court vision. His problem this year is that he has too many targets and not enough position. When Amare came back better than ever, and Leandro Barbosa emerged as the player we all thought he would be a year quicker than we all thought, Boris Diaw's place on the team got lost in the shuffle. Yes, he came to camp in the typical "I just got a HUGE extension, so now I can relax" shape that fans have seen all too often, but he IS a team guy, and he DID work himself back into shape well enough.
I just think that Diaw's place is as the focal point of a pivot passing offense, similar to Sacramento with Chris Webber. The difference is that he doesn't always need the ball in his hands. He'll be just as happy setting a screen for a shooter. But if the offensive set has broken down, he is the guy you send give the ball to, and he will find a play for someone.
Maybe I'm just trying to make a hard sell on a guy who has been a big disappointment this regular season, but I think that it would be a good scenario for Boris to be with a group of young guys that he can position for success - the kind of team that gets lost late in a game when the pressure is on, and no one knows what to do with the ball. He knows what others need to do.
For a team like Minnesota, Boris Diaw's 5 year, $45 million contract is a bargain.
Then there is Marcus Banks, who has been a complete bust, through no fault of his own, in Mike D'Antoni's system. This is a player that Minnesota traded for last season, and who took less money than Minnesota offered to sign with the Suns. Now they would have an opportunity to get him back at a discount, and that's always a smart business move. Minnesota doesn't have the big time ball moving system that Phoenix has, and Banks would benefit from a position that doesn't require the other-worldly decision making of Steve Nash.
So a package of Boris Diaw, Marcus Banks, Kurt Thomas' expiring contract (another "if" - if Thomas picks up his player option for the 2007-08 season, which he will most likely take), and two of Phoenix's first rounders, as well as a couple of future first and second round picks could be just the deal that Minnesota is not only looking for, but desperately needs in order to start over. The biggest bonus for them is that they would not have to start from ground zero, as they could easily be a .500 team with these components.
How would that work out for the Suns?
Not quite as well as many fans would hope, and certainly not well enough for Robert Sarver's check book.
Even if Phoenix makes that trade, title or not, they would be well over the projected luxury tax threshold the next two years. The more players the Suns give up, the more roster spots they would have to fill with less money than they had anticipated even without a Garnett trade.
After a trade like that, the Suns' salary would be around $78 million next season with 7 spots to fill, and a whopping $82.4 million in 2008 with the same 7 spots open. That first year isn't so bad, considering that the salary is about the same with 2 fewer open roster spots. But 2008 would be more than $10 million over where it stands now, still with 7 open seats on the bench. Someone else would have to go, and that someone is Shawn Marion (2008-09 is the last year of his max deal). A championship before then would certainly make the bitter pill of losing the Matrix much easier to swallow for all parties involved - team, player, and fans.
I haven't even started talking about the chemistry issues. As good a guy as he seems to be, Kevin Garnett can be volatile when things go bad. Sure, winning cures all athletic ills, but how would he handle having to share the floor with his second coming, Amare Stoudemire?
How would Amare take having to share the spotlight with yet another M.V.P. candidate, when he wants that award so badly for himself? Worst and most importantly of all, they play the same position with a lot of similarities. They both excel at facing the basket in the low post, and both have decent mid-range jumpers. They both like to attack the rim, and both demand the ball.
I'm sure that Amare looks up to KG and respects him immensely, but two big, hungry dogs can't share the same bowl.
To be honest, as intriguing as the prospect may be, I don't see this kind of deal working for the Suns. Whether Marion or Diaw is the centerpiece of the Suns' end, the salary and on-court ramifications look to be too great an obstacle. There are just too many things that would have to go right, and even more that could go wrong in a deal like that to make it worthwhile for a team homing in on (hopefully) its first championship trophy.
Does Kevin Garnett want out of Minnesota? Of course not. He sees himself as the Timberwolves' version of his friend and idol, the late Kirby Puckett, sticking with the franchise that drafted him through a career roller coaster of tumult and success. He has never publicly spoken about leaving Minnesota, whether through his own desire or the team's. The closest we've come to knowing what is really brewing in that intense mind is the now-famous quote, "Thank God for opt-outs."
Kevin McHale has blown this one big time, and now he is left with one of two choices to appease the 7-foot MVP.
1. Retire unceremoniously, and let Fred Hoiberg clean up his mess, which would undoubtedly result in an off-season trade to bring in new younger talent to replace Garnett.
2. Get fired, and let Fred Hoiberg clean up his mess, which would undoubtedly result in an off-season trade to bring in new younger talent to replace Garnett.
Seriously, the Wolves have no options at this point. They crippled themselves with the Joe Smith fiasco, they let Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell walk all over them, and they have more holes to fill than one top ten draft pick this season can fill. Add to that their lack of trade commodities, and they are left with one scenario - trade the only player who has any value, and get a boat load of talent and draft picks in return.
Enter the Phoenix Suns.
There are a lot of "ifs" to reconcile before anyone can talk seriously about a Phoenix trade to pick up Minnesota's perennial All Star, All Defensive team member, and former league M.V.P., not the least of which regarding the league's luxury tax threshold. The Suns have been teetering the line for two years now, and Suns owner Robert Sarver has made it clear that he absolutely does NOT want to go there - with one caveat. If the Suns win the championship, it's hard not to look deeply at all options available to improve the team and keep its title hopes alive.
So if the Suns win the championship, Kevin Garnett can be one step closer to donning Purple and Orange.
But there is still more to it.
The Wolves need to rebuild, and to do that, they need draft picks. Now, and in the future, they need help from the college ranks. They need solid young players who have proved themselves, and they need to keep salaries relatively low in order to remain competitive for years to come.
Again - enter the Phoenix Suns...and another big IF.
If the Atlanta Hawks' recent tank-fest proves unsuccessful in terms of landing a top three pick in 2007, the Suns get that pick and put themselves in prime position to be a major cog within the off-season trade machine. Not only would they land anywhere from 4 to 7 in the draft, they also have Cleveland's (low to mid 20s) and their own (29). Three first round picks in the deepest draft of recent memory. That's one hell of a starting block for the trade season sprint.
Phoenix also has loads of cap-friendly contracts to play with. As always, number one on that list is Shawn Marion's max deal that has two years at $34.25 million left after this season ends. Compare that to Garnett's two years at $45 million, with the infamous opt-out after the 2008 season. Throw in Marcus Banks and a couple of those coveted draft slots, and the Suns are well within firing range of the 125% + 100k rule.
Not that he would have a choice in the matter, but would Marion go for it? Leave town to have a chance to prove his worth without the media distractions of a two-time M.V.P. and rising star? I'm sure he would, but I'm also sure that it would be nothing that he expected, and he would rue the day that he admitted as much to ESPN the Magazine. The grass is always greener, they say, and Minnesota is known more for its freezing winters than sprawling gardens.
It would be a hasty, ill-conceived move on the part of the Suns to pull a trigger on a Garnett for Marion deal. Why give up a player who meshes so well with this team simply on the basis that his salary does not? There are other ways, and Robert Sarver would have to bite the bullet that he might otherwise use to shoot himself in the foot.
The Suns will need to dump salary, regardless of the results of this postseason and whether or not they make a trade for Garnett. The payroll in Phoenix will be pushing the $77-78 million mark next season, and that's not counting the five roster spots the team has to fill, in accordance with the most recent collective bargaining agreement.
The odd thing about an NBA General Manager's job is that they constantly have to base their long-term goals on short-term expectations. They have to keep an eye on future free agent markets, draft classes, and trade possibilities, as well as all the salary implications that go with it - will their hands be financially tied in 3 years because of a deal they made last summer to win a championship this June?
It's a tough business, to be sure. So tough that the no-brainer signing of Boris Diaw to a $45 million contract last season is suddenly looking like the NBAPA coup of the new millennium, Kwame Brown and Michael Olawakandi notwithstanding. Reward a player for potential or one good year, and it could leave a franchise snake-bit for half a decade if the player doesn't pan out.
But I think that Diaw is a special case. He is the consummate team player, excellent passer from the high post, and has almost unparalleled court vision. His problem this year is that he has too many targets and not enough position. When Amare came back better than ever, and Leandro Barbosa emerged as the player we all thought he would be a year quicker than we all thought, Boris Diaw's place on the team got lost in the shuffle. Yes, he came to camp in the typical "I just got a HUGE extension, so now I can relax" shape that fans have seen all too often, but he IS a team guy, and he DID work himself back into shape well enough.
I just think that Diaw's place is as the focal point of a pivot passing offense, similar to Sacramento with Chris Webber. The difference is that he doesn't always need the ball in his hands. He'll be just as happy setting a screen for a shooter. But if the offensive set has broken down, he is the guy you send give the ball to, and he will find a play for someone.
Maybe I'm just trying to make a hard sell on a guy who has been a big disappointment this regular season, but I think that it would be a good scenario for Boris to be with a group of young guys that he can position for success - the kind of team that gets lost late in a game when the pressure is on, and no one knows what to do with the ball. He knows what others need to do.
For a team like Minnesota, Boris Diaw's 5 year, $45 million contract is a bargain.
Then there is Marcus Banks, who has been a complete bust, through no fault of his own, in Mike D'Antoni's system. This is a player that Minnesota traded for last season, and who took less money than Minnesota offered to sign with the Suns. Now they would have an opportunity to get him back at a discount, and that's always a smart business move. Minnesota doesn't have the big time ball moving system that Phoenix has, and Banks would benefit from a position that doesn't require the other-worldly decision making of Steve Nash.
So a package of Boris Diaw, Marcus Banks, Kurt Thomas' expiring contract (another "if" - if Thomas picks up his player option for the 2007-08 season, which he will most likely take), and two of Phoenix's first rounders, as well as a couple of future first and second round picks could be just the deal that Minnesota is not only looking for, but desperately needs in order to start over. The biggest bonus for them is that they would not have to start from ground zero, as they could easily be a .500 team with these components.
How would that work out for the Suns?
Not quite as well as many fans would hope, and certainly not well enough for Robert Sarver's check book.
Even if Phoenix makes that trade, title or not, they would be well over the projected luxury tax threshold the next two years. The more players the Suns give up, the more roster spots they would have to fill with less money than they had anticipated even without a Garnett trade.
After a trade like that, the Suns' salary would be around $78 million next season with 7 spots to fill, and a whopping $82.4 million in 2008 with the same 7 spots open. That first year isn't so bad, considering that the salary is about the same with 2 fewer open roster spots. But 2008 would be more than $10 million over where it stands now, still with 7 open seats on the bench. Someone else would have to go, and that someone is Shawn Marion (2008-09 is the last year of his max deal). A championship before then would certainly make the bitter pill of losing the Matrix much easier to swallow for all parties involved - team, player, and fans.
I haven't even started talking about the chemistry issues. As good a guy as he seems to be, Kevin Garnett can be volatile when things go bad. Sure, winning cures all athletic ills, but how would he handle having to share the floor with his second coming, Amare Stoudemire?
How would Amare take having to share the spotlight with yet another M.V.P. candidate, when he wants that award so badly for himself? Worst and most importantly of all, they play the same position with a lot of similarities. They both excel at facing the basket in the low post, and both have decent mid-range jumpers. They both like to attack the rim, and both demand the ball.
I'm sure that Amare looks up to KG and respects him immensely, but two big, hungry dogs can't share the same bowl.
To be honest, as intriguing as the prospect may be, I don't see this kind of deal working for the Suns. Whether Marion or Diaw is the centerpiece of the Suns' end, the salary and on-court ramifications look to be too great an obstacle. There are just too many things that would have to go right, and even more that could go wrong in a deal like that to make it worthwhile for a team homing in on (hopefully) its first championship trophy.
April 13, 2007
Shawn and I
I have a short list of people that I wish I could meet (or would have met) sometime in my life. It is an eclectic grouping of talent of musicians, writers, astrophysicists, comedians, and film makers.
Most on the list are dead, such as Waylon Jennings, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Fosse, and Hunter S. Thompson, so I can only know them through their works. Others I admire from afar, holding onto the slim hope that one day I'll be graced by their presence and words of wisdom. I've often daydreamed of holding court with George Carlin to discuss life, culture, and linguistics. And there are, of course, those I feel would just be cool to hang out with (Dave Chapelle, Willie Nelson, Johnny Depp).
Thinking about the list, there seems to be a single unifying component that intrigues me about all of them. They were all geniuses in their own right in what they did. They were all able to pinpoint a talent early in life and turn it into well-rounded and well-respected careers. I suppose it's all fantasy, but I do feel that I relate to all of them in that one way, at the same time envying their success and wondering just how they were able to turn off the voices of social reason and forge their lives and genius in such self-defining ways.
I was just reading a rather uninspired yet somewhat insightful article about Shawn Marion. From my perspective, it is easy to understand why he feels so under-appreciated. Aside from the lucrative max deal he got from the Suns, the Nike deal, and the fact that a member of the Pussycat Dolls wears a Suns 31 jersey for ABC games, Shawn Marion just doesn't seem to get the recognition - not that he needs - but that he truly deserves.
Like Shawn, I was once a consistently key component of an organization (a performance company). I was the guy who did everything to insure that everyone was on the same page, and who covered the mistakes of others (granted, making a few mistakes of my own along the way). It was suspected among the organization that I was a genius of sorts, bringing in new ideas and a pragmatic sense of secondary leadership that took the old way and made sense of it to the new wave of talent. People wanted to be a part of what I was doing because they recognized its value and potential. I was hesitantly regarded as "the future".
Still, when it came time for accolades, I always seemed to be an afterthought, garnering the occasional "nice work, I hope you keep it up" from random viewers. My name was rarely mentioned along side the "stars" of the program, although I got my internal thanks after it was all over. It's frustrating for a person to know that he's a significant component to a machine, to be told so behind closed doors, and never getting elevated to the status that others achieve (in no small part to his own efforts, hard work, and yes...suspected genius).
There's always a hierarchical component to organizational performance, but rarely is that dynamic displayed in its natural form. One member's personality or "star power" invariably skews the public perception, and those less deserving members get the more important accolades that those who actually make it all possible are denied. Well, if not possible, then at least more successful than it would have been.
The light bulb glows, and people are thankful for the light, not the electricity.
And I can see that in Shawn Marion. What he accomplishes on the basketball court is sheer physical genius. It's not just that he's undersized or unorthodox. It's that he's everywhere. The qualities that prompted Kenny Smith to dub him "the Matrix" are the foundation for his genius. But he moves so quickly and effortlessly that it's easy to overlook everything he accomplishes between the baselines.
Maybe it isn't so much that I want to meet him, but that I feel like he should meet me. I read and hear every word he says on the subject of his lack of media respect, and I understand exactly where he's coming from. Even when most people look at the contract and the All Star appointments, I see what's really missing from his resume. He gets plenty of behind-the-scenes thanks and meaningless nods from game-day media staff. All that amounts to is a future of "Hey, remember that guy who could fill a stat sheet?"
Shawn Marion is better than that. I'd love to meet him. I suspect that there's a lot more going on in that mind of his than people give him credit for. It takes one to know one, and I think that Shawn is one of those subtle geniuses whose gifts won't truly be appreciated fully until after he's long gone.
Most on the list are dead, such as Waylon Jennings, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Fosse, and Hunter S. Thompson, so I can only know them through their works. Others I admire from afar, holding onto the slim hope that one day I'll be graced by their presence and words of wisdom. I've often daydreamed of holding court with George Carlin to discuss life, culture, and linguistics. And there are, of course, those I feel would just be cool to hang out with (Dave Chapelle, Willie Nelson, Johnny Depp).
Thinking about the list, there seems to be a single unifying component that intrigues me about all of them. They were all geniuses in their own right in what they did. They were all able to pinpoint a talent early in life and turn it into well-rounded and well-respected careers. I suppose it's all fantasy, but I do feel that I relate to all of them in that one way, at the same time envying their success and wondering just how they were able to turn off the voices of social reason and forge their lives and genius in such self-defining ways.
I was just reading a rather uninspired yet somewhat insightful article about Shawn Marion. From my perspective, it is easy to understand why he feels so under-appreciated. Aside from the lucrative max deal he got from the Suns, the Nike deal, and the fact that a member of the Pussycat Dolls wears a Suns 31 jersey for ABC games, Shawn Marion just doesn't seem to get the recognition - not that he needs - but that he truly deserves.
Like Shawn, I was once a consistently key component of an organization (a performance company). I was the guy who did everything to insure that everyone was on the same page, and who covered the mistakes of others (granted, making a few mistakes of my own along the way). It was suspected among the organization that I was a genius of sorts, bringing in new ideas and a pragmatic sense of secondary leadership that took the old way and made sense of it to the new wave of talent. People wanted to be a part of what I was doing because they recognized its value and potential. I was hesitantly regarded as "the future".
Still, when it came time for accolades, I always seemed to be an afterthought, garnering the occasional "nice work, I hope you keep it up" from random viewers. My name was rarely mentioned along side the "stars" of the program, although I got my internal thanks after it was all over. It's frustrating for a person to know that he's a significant component to a machine, to be told so behind closed doors, and never getting elevated to the status that others achieve (in no small part to his own efforts, hard work, and yes...suspected genius).
There's always a hierarchical component to organizational performance, but rarely is that dynamic displayed in its natural form. One member's personality or "star power" invariably skews the public perception, and those less deserving members get the more important accolades that those who actually make it all possible are denied. Well, if not possible, then at least more successful than it would have been.
The light bulb glows, and people are thankful for the light, not the electricity.
And I can see that in Shawn Marion. What he accomplishes on the basketball court is sheer physical genius. It's not just that he's undersized or unorthodox. It's that he's everywhere. The qualities that prompted Kenny Smith to dub him "the Matrix" are the foundation for his genius. But he moves so quickly and effortlessly that it's easy to overlook everything he accomplishes between the baselines.
Maybe it isn't so much that I want to meet him, but that I feel like he should meet me. I read and hear every word he says on the subject of his lack of media respect, and I understand exactly where he's coming from. Even when most people look at the contract and the All Star appointments, I see what's really missing from his resume. He gets plenty of behind-the-scenes thanks and meaningless nods from game-day media staff. All that amounts to is a future of "Hey, remember that guy who could fill a stat sheet?"
Shawn Marion is better than that. I'd love to meet him. I suspect that there's a lot more going on in that mind of his than people give him credit for. It takes one to know one, and I think that Shawn is one of those subtle geniuses whose gifts won't truly be appreciated fully until after he's long gone.
April 12, 2007
Defensive Joke of the Year
It's the end of the regular season, so it's time for break room and message board debate to hit full steam. With all the postseason awards the league hands out every year, it's difficult not to find something (or someone) around which an entire afternoon can be spent exploring the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of the minds of the voters. Which is funny, because most of the time they seem not to have minds of their own at all - the sports media, I mean.
Take, for example, Scoop Jackson of SLAM! Magazine and espn.com's Page 2. He's so busy looking for reasons that Steve Nash shouldn't be the league's MVP to talk about the things that matter, such as his MVP credentials. A more balanced and honest approach is taken by his colleague, Jamele Hill. It's not that I'm a homer that I like her take better. It's just that she mentions some extremely valid points at the end, most notably that "Nash's defense is a step above atrocious, a trait no other MVP had." But if you're going to use that, then you may as well use it to knock down Nash's only competition. Dirk's size shouldn't be confused with defensive capability.
The great thing about the MVP award, though, is that people tend not to focus on the negative. Even when Nash was winning his first two Podoloff trophies, the rumblings of his supposedly nonexistent defense remained just that - under-the-breath, barely within earshot mumbles. It had never really come up before, and probably shouldn't this year, considering the competition. Besides, there is a whole other award given for the defensive players.
Just as the MVP has gone away from defense as a major criterion, the Defensive Player of the Year award seems to have undertaken the notion that offensive talent need not apply. Alonzo Mourning was the last player to score at least 20 points per game the season he won the award.
But if that trend continues, the award itself may lose its meaning entirely. I'm talking about the mindset of voters that the DPoY should somehow be a consolation prize for the offensively inept. Over the past few years, due to Ben Wallace's unprecedented run of four DPoYs in five years, talk of Bruce Bowen deserving the award has gotten louder and louder. Today, it became ear-shattering when Sports Illustrated's trio of postseason award voters, Jack McCallum, Ian Thomsen, and Marty Burns shared their thoughts with readers. My first thought was, and pardon my Francois...
Are you fucking kidding me?*
It surprised me in ways that I can't describe that Shawn Marion only showed up on ONE of the three ballots - second place, no less. To be fair to Jack McCallum, he listed Tim Duncan and Marcus Camby as his top two picks. Even I can't argue against those choices, as they are both defensive machines with superhuman game altering abilities, especially since Duncan has been inexplicably eliminated from the MVP conversation by the media. Besides, the Defensive Player of the Year has traditionally been a big man, and for good reason. But it's McCallum's third choice, and Thomsen and Burns' first choice that really kills me.
Bruce Bowen? Over Shawn Marion? Again...
Are you fucking KIDDING me?!
In all honesty, a few years ago I would have agreed with them. Bowen's tenacity is infamous in current NBA lore, and his ability to get under the skin (and jerseys) of opposing players is almost legendary. To add insult to injury, Burns goes so far as to suggest that Shawn Marion isn't the "defensive stopper" that Bowen is.
Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect, albeit begrudgingly, for Bowen's defense. His ability to superglue himself to his cover is frustrating for a fan to watch, so I can imagine how tough it is for the perimeter player himself to cope. But if you're going to stick Bowen in that category, why not insert Raja Bell right behind him? Or, better yet, in front of him? Bell is, after all one of the few defenders that has even earned the respect of one Kobe Bryant.
And really, what's the difference? The stories of their individual treks to the NBA are the same. They were both undrafted free agents who used defense to earn a regular gig in the league. The only thing is that Raja wasn't satisfied with simply having a job. He wanted to improve himself and his game. Now Bell is one of the most feared three point shooters in the league. Not only that, he's become a better than average ball handler, taking over the passing duties in Nash's absence this year.
Apparently it's a lack of offensive game that is motivating these writers and pundits to hand the award to someone whose sole purpose is to nag offensive talents. But Bowen over Marion? Have these people not bothered to look at a stat sheet in the last decade? You remember statistics - those neat little numbers that encapsulate a player's game in a tangible way that make simple decisions like this that much easier.
Shawn Marion is one of two players in the NBA (along with Ben Wallace) to occupy the top 20 in rebounds, blocked shots, and steals per game. Don't believe me? Look here, here, and here.
Apparently, 10 rebounds, 2 steals, and 1.5 blocked shots isn't the combination of stats that the voters are looking for anymore. According to Marty Burns, it's that "Bowen's ability to defend the opposition's top perimeter threat every night is critical to the Spurs' outstanding defense." Where do Bowen's .7 blocks and .8 steals per game figure into his reasoning? He also fails to mention Shawn Marion's ability to guard the opposition's best PLAYER, regardless of position. This from a 6'7" 225 pound small forward who is consistently playing out of position.
Let's go ahead and take Marty's route of intangibles and see where we end up. First of all, let's take a look at those perimeter threats that Bowen is likely to face in the playoffs. (Yes, I know that it's a regular season award, but who better to use for comparison than the guys that really matter.)
Will Bowen be assigned to lock down Allen Iverson and his 40.2% postseason scoring average, or will it be Carmelo Anthony's 36.2%? Is he going to put a halt to Steve Nash's penetration and precision, or Leandro Barbosa's interstellar first step? If the Spurs make it past Phoenix, will he be stopping Jason Terry, Josh Howard, AND Jerry Stackhouse? Granted, that's a pretty lofty list of players to deal with, and only a great defender would have a chance of slowing any one of them down.
But there are some glaring omissions from that list - namely Amare Stoudemire and Dirk Nowitzki. Yes, I know that Bruce Bowen had success against Dirk in the past. But how has he handled a big Auslander with a better passing game and back-to-the-basket array of fall aways? And what coach in his right mind wants to endanger the health and well-being of the "best perimeter defender in the game" by sticking him in front of that run away freight train we in Phoenix call Black Jesus?
Shawn Marion, on the other hand, has proved himself more than capable of defending every player on that list, as well as Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan. Shawn doesn't care who he's defending, as long as it's the other team's best player. He lives for it, and his offensive game thrives on it.
More importantly, Bruce Bowen plays on a team whose coach's philosophy is "play defense or go to the WNBA". His defensive presence is center stage because that's the system. Marion, on the other hand, plays on a team where defense is an after thought. In fact, without Shawn Marion, the Suns wouldn't have a defense at all! (My apologies to Bell and Kurt Thomas, but every defensive possession begins and ends with Shawn's ability to guard any player on the floor at any given time, including after switches.) Why punish a great defender for playing on the best offensive team in the league? If not for Marion's defense, the Suns would not be the title contender they are today.
When the Suns beat the Mavericks IN Dallas in the double-overtime-best-game-of-the-regular-season-instant-classic on March 14, who was the player who prevented Nowitzki from getting within arm's reach of the lane, forcing Dirk to settle for fade away after fade away? Who was it that forced Jason Terry into a crucial turnover in the second overtime with the Suns leading by 4? Who was keeping Phoenix in the game against San Antonio on April 5, to the point the Suns were leading 37-36 AT THE HALF?
That's right. It was Shawn Marion.
And when he went out with a dubious foul in the third quarter of that Spurs game, San Antonio built its biggest lead, going up by 12. And when Marion came back into the game for the fourth quarter, the Suns made their final push that, had it not been for a Steve Nash pass that Amare Stoudemire couldn't hang onto, almost stole the game for Phoenix. And it was a HUGE block on Tim Duncan in that fourth quarter that highlighted exactly why Shawn Marion is and should be voted as the NBA's Defensive Player of the year.
You want stats? You got 'em. You want intangibles? You got those, too. So the question is, what else does Shawn Marion have to do? He has nothing left to prove except that he's a champion, and it's going to take seven more guys on his team to get that. Without Marion's defense, those seven guys don't have a prayer.
And here we have respected national sports journalists illustrating Marion's number one complaint of his career. You wonder why he feels under-appreciated? It's easy. You give awards that he's more than earned to guys less deserving.
*Author's note: I try to stay away from profanity when I write, but in this instance, the circumstances are just so ridiculous that I can't think of any other way to put my disbelief. My apologies for any offense.
Take, for example, Scoop Jackson of SLAM! Magazine and espn.com's Page 2. He's so busy looking for reasons that Steve Nash shouldn't be the league's MVP to talk about the things that matter, such as his MVP credentials. A more balanced and honest approach is taken by his colleague, Jamele Hill. It's not that I'm a homer that I like her take better. It's just that she mentions some extremely valid points at the end, most notably that "Nash's defense is a step above atrocious, a trait no other MVP had." But if you're going to use that, then you may as well use it to knock down Nash's only competition. Dirk's size shouldn't be confused with defensive capability.
The great thing about the MVP award, though, is that people tend not to focus on the negative. Even when Nash was winning his first two Podoloff trophies, the rumblings of his supposedly nonexistent defense remained just that - under-the-breath, barely within earshot mumbles. It had never really come up before, and probably shouldn't this year, considering the competition. Besides, there is a whole other award given for the defensive players.
Just as the MVP has gone away from defense as a major criterion, the Defensive Player of the Year award seems to have undertaken the notion that offensive talent need not apply. Alonzo Mourning was the last player to score at least 20 points per game the season he won the award.
But if that trend continues, the award itself may lose its meaning entirely. I'm talking about the mindset of voters that the DPoY should somehow be a consolation prize for the offensively inept. Over the past few years, due to Ben Wallace's unprecedented run of four DPoYs in five years, talk of Bruce Bowen deserving the award has gotten louder and louder. Today, it became ear-shattering when Sports Illustrated's trio of postseason award voters, Jack McCallum, Ian Thomsen, and Marty Burns shared their thoughts with readers. My first thought was, and pardon my Francois...
Are you fucking kidding me?*
It surprised me in ways that I can't describe that Shawn Marion only showed up on ONE of the three ballots - second place, no less. To be fair to Jack McCallum, he listed Tim Duncan and Marcus Camby as his top two picks. Even I can't argue against those choices, as they are both defensive machines with superhuman game altering abilities, especially since Duncan has been inexplicably eliminated from the MVP conversation by the media. Besides, the Defensive Player of the Year has traditionally been a big man, and for good reason. But it's McCallum's third choice, and Thomsen and Burns' first choice that really kills me.
Bruce Bowen? Over Shawn Marion? Again...
Are you fucking KIDDING me?!
In all honesty, a few years ago I would have agreed with them. Bowen's tenacity is infamous in current NBA lore, and his ability to get under the skin (and jerseys) of opposing players is almost legendary. To add insult to injury, Burns goes so far as to suggest that Shawn Marion isn't the "defensive stopper" that Bowen is.
Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect, albeit begrudgingly, for Bowen's defense. His ability to superglue himself to his cover is frustrating for a fan to watch, so I can imagine how tough it is for the perimeter player himself to cope. But if you're going to stick Bowen in that category, why not insert Raja Bell right behind him? Or, better yet, in front of him? Bell is, after all one of the few defenders that has even earned the respect of one Kobe Bryant.
And really, what's the difference? The stories of their individual treks to the NBA are the same. They were both undrafted free agents who used defense to earn a regular gig in the league. The only thing is that Raja wasn't satisfied with simply having a job. He wanted to improve himself and his game. Now Bell is one of the most feared three point shooters in the league. Not only that, he's become a better than average ball handler, taking over the passing duties in Nash's absence this year.
Apparently it's a lack of offensive game that is motivating these writers and pundits to hand the award to someone whose sole purpose is to nag offensive talents. But Bowen over Marion? Have these people not bothered to look at a stat sheet in the last decade? You remember statistics - those neat little numbers that encapsulate a player's game in a tangible way that make simple decisions like this that much easier.
Shawn Marion is one of two players in the NBA (along with Ben Wallace) to occupy the top 20 in rebounds, blocked shots, and steals per game. Don't believe me? Look here, here, and here.
Apparently, 10 rebounds, 2 steals, and 1.5 blocked shots isn't the combination of stats that the voters are looking for anymore. According to Marty Burns, it's that "Bowen's ability to defend the opposition's top perimeter threat every night is critical to the Spurs' outstanding defense." Where do Bowen's .7 blocks and .8 steals per game figure into his reasoning? He also fails to mention Shawn Marion's ability to guard the opposition's best PLAYER, regardless of position. This from a 6'7" 225 pound small forward who is consistently playing out of position.
Let's go ahead and take Marty's route of intangibles and see where we end up. First of all, let's take a look at those perimeter threats that Bowen is likely to face in the playoffs. (Yes, I know that it's a regular season award, but who better to use for comparison than the guys that really matter.)
Will Bowen be assigned to lock down Allen Iverson and his 40.2% postseason scoring average, or will it be Carmelo Anthony's 36.2%? Is he going to put a halt to Steve Nash's penetration and precision, or Leandro Barbosa's interstellar first step? If the Spurs make it past Phoenix, will he be stopping Jason Terry, Josh Howard, AND Jerry Stackhouse? Granted, that's a pretty lofty list of players to deal with, and only a great defender would have a chance of slowing any one of them down.
But there are some glaring omissions from that list - namely Amare Stoudemire and Dirk Nowitzki. Yes, I know that Bruce Bowen had success against Dirk in the past. But how has he handled a big Auslander with a better passing game and back-to-the-basket array of fall aways? And what coach in his right mind wants to endanger the health and well-being of the "best perimeter defender in the game" by sticking him in front of that run away freight train we in Phoenix call Black Jesus?
Shawn Marion, on the other hand, has proved himself more than capable of defending every player on that list, as well as Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan. Shawn doesn't care who he's defending, as long as it's the other team's best player. He lives for it, and his offensive game thrives on it.
More importantly, Bruce Bowen plays on a team whose coach's philosophy is "play defense or go to the WNBA". His defensive presence is center stage because that's the system. Marion, on the other hand, plays on a team where defense is an after thought. In fact, without Shawn Marion, the Suns wouldn't have a defense at all! (My apologies to Bell and Kurt Thomas, but every defensive possession begins and ends with Shawn's ability to guard any player on the floor at any given time, including after switches.) Why punish a great defender for playing on the best offensive team in the league? If not for Marion's defense, the Suns would not be the title contender they are today.
When the Suns beat the Mavericks IN Dallas in the double-overtime-best-game-of-the-regular-season-instant-classic on March 14, who was the player who prevented Nowitzki from getting within arm's reach of the lane, forcing Dirk to settle for fade away after fade away? Who was it that forced Jason Terry into a crucial turnover in the second overtime with the Suns leading by 4? Who was keeping Phoenix in the game against San Antonio on April 5, to the point the Suns were leading 37-36 AT THE HALF?
That's right. It was Shawn Marion.
And when he went out with a dubious foul in the third quarter of that Spurs game, San Antonio built its biggest lead, going up by 12. And when Marion came back into the game for the fourth quarter, the Suns made their final push that, had it not been for a Steve Nash pass that Amare Stoudemire couldn't hang onto, almost stole the game for Phoenix. And it was a HUGE block on Tim Duncan in that fourth quarter that highlighted exactly why Shawn Marion is and should be voted as the NBA's Defensive Player of the year.
You want stats? You got 'em. You want intangibles? You got those, too. So the question is, what else does Shawn Marion have to do? He has nothing left to prove except that he's a champion, and it's going to take seven more guys on his team to get that. Without Marion's defense, those seven guys don't have a prayer.
And here we have respected national sports journalists illustrating Marion's number one complaint of his career. You wonder why he feels under-appreciated? It's easy. You give awards that he's more than earned to guys less deserving.
*Author's note: I try to stay away from profanity when I write, but in this instance, the circumstances are just so ridiculous that I can't think of any other way to put my disbelief. My apologies for any offense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
