Grumpy Old Men: A defense of the modern NBA and the Majesty of KG
Star Tribune sports columnist Dan Barreiro is a master of the diatribe, a spewer of bile of the first order. Consequently, I was somewhat disheartened to discover that his “the NBA ain’t what it used to be” feature on the front page of Sunday’s sports section was a decidedly lukewarm effort among his pantheon of screeds. Clearly, Dirty Dan’s soul wasn’t in it, either because his self-professed “complacency” toward pro basketball has quickly devolved into outright apathy, or because he doesn’t totally buy his own argument. I prefer the latter interpretation, mostly because I think that, despite his dispostion, Barreiro is an astute roundball observer. On that basis, here is a rebuttal to his Grumpy Old Man take on the NBA.
Barreiro’s lack of imagination is evidenced by his use of Derek Coleman—a favorite whipping boy of GOM—as lead example of what is wrong with the game. I’ll grant that DC has pissed away much of his vast potential, but argue that all sports contain notorious underachievers—it’s an ongoing fact of life, not a sign of the apocalypse. Pro football has never been more commercially healthy and competitive, yet has there been a bigger dog among athletes over the past decade than Ryan Leaf? And as for Barreiro’s lament that NBA players often joke and fraternize with each other as soon as the game is over, well, when was the last time that didn’t happen after an NFL contest?
The people Barreiro cites to support his position include Bill Blair and Quinn Buckner, two coaches who failed miserably because they weren’t flexible or accomplished enough to get players to buy into their methods; Vern Mikkelsen, a GOOOM—a Grumpy Old Old Old Man—who says money is a corrupting influence when you know if the bucks had been around when he was playing he would have snatched them; Jack Ramsey, another guy long past age 70; and Trent Tucker, who has big-upped many of the players, including Stephon Marbury, that Ramsey criticizes.
Barreiro criticizes Allen Iverson for his lackadaisical attitude toward practice, neglecting to mention that teams—especially ones run by Iverson’s coach, Larry Brown--practice harder and absorb far more information than their predecessors did between games, and work much harder to stay in shape during the off-season. (And perhaps Barreiro forgets that Michael Jordan, one of his heroes, occasionally was given practices off during his prime.) After complaining that players don’t care enough about winning and losing, he rips the antics of Ron Artest and Rasheed Wallace, two players who with extraordinary passion and competitive zeal, whose problems with anger management obviously stem from an unbalanced need to win. Barreiro claims that the ongoing effectiveness of Stockton and Malone is proof that the league has slackened its fundamentals. Well, when Stockton and Malone were in their prime, they made it to the NBA finals. Now, even with the leading candidate for Most Improved Player, Matt Harping, they are fighting merely to make the playoffs. If you’re comparing fundamental basketball and NBA history, cue up some reels from the 60s and 70s, when the primary play in pro hoops was someone coming down the floor and chucking up a shot: It wasn’t uncommon for a team’s leading rebounder to average 20 boards a game. Total shots are way down in the modern NBA because more set plays are run, complicated set plays as well as fundamental plays like the pick and roll. And defense is much better in the modern NBA. The Celtics won something like ten championships in 11 years back in the 60s primarily because they were one of the few teams in the league to emphasize defense. Today, the players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic and they concentrate on defense more than before. Hell, watch tapes of the NBA during its so-called “golden era” with Bird and Magic and see how soft it was, how little overt physicality there was compared to today.
This is not an argument that today’s game is “better” than it was before, just that the game is constantly evolving, for better and worse, and that things are simply much different than 20 or 30 years ago. Ramsey rips the ability of modern guards such as Iveson, Marbury, and Steve Francis to create their own shot, which he claims forces their teammates to stand around and wait. I’d argue that roles have become less defined, and that your quality passers are as likely to be forwards and centers—Shaq, Yao Ming, Vlade Divac, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, and so on—setting up shots out on the perimeter, where the implementation of the 3-pointer has altered offensive strategies. Today’s winning teams—Dallas, the Lakers, New Jersey, Sacramento, etc.—are all renowned for their ball movement, which is as good or better than the teams of yore. If you want to cite somebody who slowed down the game and made his teammates wait, look at another Barreiro favorite, Charles Barkley, whose interminable, stand-in-place dribbling in the low post helped initiate the move to zone defenses and a shorter shot clock for half-court possessions.
In conclusion, what we have here is the latest of endless examples of the Grumpy Old Man syndrome, satirized by Dana Carvey on SNL. (“In my day, we used to walk home from school barefoot on broken glass…and we loved it!”)
Let’s wrap this up with some deliberate provocation. I grew up with the Boston Celtics, and have been a lifelong fan of the franchise, through Cousy, Russell, Havlicek, Jo Jo White and Bird. (I draw the line at Antoine Walker, the example Barreiro should have cited for his story.) It is my no-bullshit belief that Kevin Garnett, on the basis of this year’s play, is operating at a higher level than the fabled Larry Bird in his prime. Imagine Bird and KG going head-to-head. Figure out where Bird has the advantage with KG guarding him, and vice versa. Ask yourself how many rings Garnett would have if his teammates were Kevin McHale, Robert Parrish, Dennis Johnson, and Danny Ainge; and how many playoff series the Wolves would have won with Bird playing alongside Szczerbiak, Brandon, and the rest of KG’s revolving cast of teammates.
In a future blog or Hang Time column, I’ll vent my displeasure over the commercially-driven hype accorded Yao Ming, or the tunnel-vision fans have toward scorers such as Tracy McGrady compared to all-around superstars like KG. But for now, I’ll just cite a recent email from the Timberwolves’ stat guy, Paul Swanson, who took the Wolves’ plus-minus point totals (vis a vis their opponents) with Garnett on the floor and off the floor so far this season, then extrapolated those totals over a 48-minute game, averaged it into total team points for and against, and arrived at wins and losses over an 82-game NBA season. It sounds very complicated, I know, but I think Paul’s email lays it out pretty well, and shows why anyone who doesn’t think KG is the league’s MVP this year is either stupid or crazy..
An update on Kevin Garnett's 2002-03 plus/minus at the All Star Break:
On the floor (1991 minutes): 4089-3877 (+212)
Per 48 minutes: 98.6-93.5 / Exp. record: 58-24
On the bench (376 minutes): 657-813 (-156)
Per 48 minutes: 83.9-103.8 / Exp. record: 2-80
Difference: +14.7 offensively, +10.3 defensively (+25.0 total)
P.S. He was also +15 in Sunday's 10-point All-Star Game win...
5:17:05 PM 
|
|
