Point-Counterpoint: The Big O and Kareem go tete-a-tete in the Times on Kobe

SamFisher · Feb 18, 2006

Interesting set of opinion pieces in the New York Times this morning:

The Big O ("Kids today!") :

February 18, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

Putting the 'I' in the Lakers

By OSCAR ROBERTSON
Cincinnati

TOMORROW'S N.B.A. All-Star Game is a time to take stock of the league, and thus far the "highlight" of the season was Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers scoring 81 points. That certainly created a buzz. Could he someday break 100, and eclipse Wilt Chamberlain's record from 1962? Possibly. But what's the point? However much he scores, he plays on a team that will have difficulty staying above .500, let alone making the playoffs.

All the attention given to Kobe's feat exemplifies the focus of the N.B.A. today — from the news media, the fans and the players — on individual statistics instead of team success. And there are so many more stats than ever before. Not just scoring, but turnovers-to-assists ratio. Steals and blocked shots. Most technical fouls. And the most important statistic of all: who sells the most jerseys.

As far as I'm concerned, the only stat that counts is the win column. To be on top in that category, you have to play team basketball. You can't have just one or two players taking all the shots. When you get into the playoffs, you're going to need everyone to score.

The Lakers have already been through this once, when they first had Shaquille O'Neal playing alongside Kobe. When they needed other players to step up, they ran into difficulty. Now Kobe is being asked to carry the load by himself.

Kobe is certainly one of the two or three most talented players in the game today. He works hard, he keeps getting better, and he wants to win. But he's in a no-win situation. The rest of his team is not all that talented. So he gets knocked if he tries to win by scoring more, and he gets knocked if he tries to involve the other players. And no one is going to trade a player to the Lakers who will help them significantly. Shaq isn't coming back, and there aren't any Kareems available these days. But Kobe plays in a show biz town, and as long as his individual exploits put fans in the seats, that seems to be O.K. for the moment.

Even with its present roster, however, I think his team could give him more support, and maybe even steal a few wins along the way. They could step up their effort on defense. They could force their opponents into more of a transition game. They could take advantage of the defensive attention Kobe draws and run more weak-side plays, double-screens and reverses to open up easy shots for other players.

I have to laugh when I read that the defenses are so much tougher today, with so many different sets, including the zone, and that's why scoring is down again, and that's why Kobe's achievement is even greater than Wilt's. Scoring is down because most offenses today make it easy on the defense. There's very little ball movement, or moving without the ball. The mid-range game has all but disappeared. It's either force the ball inside and see what happens, or kick it back out for a three-pointer.

My philosophy was always to make the weakest link stronger, and create scoring opportunities for everyone. When you're asking guys to battle for rebounds and play tough defense, you have to involve them in the offense as well.

This philosophy worked in Milwaukee with a speedy forward named Greg Smith, who learned that I would find him if he got out in front on the fast break. It worked in Cincinnati with our center, Wayne Embry, whose limited game under the basket put him at a serious disadvantage against players like Bill Russell and Wilt. But once Wayne saw that he'd be open for mid-range jumpers when I drove to the hoop, he worked hard to develop an outside shot and considerably increased his scoring average. It's important to build each player's confidence, and it's also how you build a team as the season progresses, so everyone is ready at playoff time.

Last season, that sort of team basketball seemed to be making a comeback. The Pistons, lightly regarded, had knocked off the Lakers in the previous season's finals with aggressive team defense and a balanced, fast-moving offense. As a result, we were told that other teams were going to step up the tempo, play better defense, and emphasize team play.

But this season we're back to business as usual. Yes, a few general managers and coaches know how to build cohesive teams by acquiring, motivating and retaining unselfish players who have talent and commitment. They also recognize that a strong bench is critical. These are the teams you generally find atop the standings: Detroit, San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix (the jury is still out on Miami, New Jersey and the Los Angeles Clippers). Others are trying to instill a team approach, and have success on occasion (Cleveland, with LeBron James, is still a bench away from moving into the top rank). The rest, including some division leaders, are pretty much interchangeable, most hovering a few games above or below .500.

Building a successful, sustainable team is not easy. Part of the challenge is that many moderately skilled players really believe they are stars, and that the franchise revolves around them. But few players, including some of these "stars," seem dedicated to the continuous improvement of their games, or to helping their teams improve. Few players seem willing to be role players, to make a contribution off the bench, or actually to earn more playing time. They take their money and go home.

So here's what today's game looks like: The ball goes inbounds, whoever gets it tries to make something happen on his own, and everybody else stands and watches. More often than not, the player with the ball looks for the three-point shot. And nobody guards him! Why wouldn't you try to stop someone from scoring three points? Even if it's a low-percentage shot, make it an even lower-percentage shot. Or is that too much like work?

I know, you've heard a lot of this from us old-school players. And you'll continue to hear it. I, for one, care too much about the game to settle for the highlight reel that N.B.A. basketball has become today. I believe Kobe does as well.

Oscar Robertson, a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame and 12-time N.B.A. All-Star, is the author of "The Art of Basketball."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/opinion/18robertson.html
Click to expand...

...and Mr. Jabbar, your rebuttal:

February 18, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

A One-Man Gang

By KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR
Los Angeles

COMPARING Kobe Bryant's 81-point game last month to Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game is like comparing an orange to an avocado. Physically, Wilt was a totally different player from Kobe, and he had a whole different skill set. As a center, Wilt was suited to playing right around the basket, while Kobe has systematically perfected just about any offensive designation you can name. Passing the ball, shooting threes, driving to the hoop, pulling up for mid-range jumpers ... he does it all, and he does it all very well. His versatility sets him apart from the rest of the league.

I think Kobe's Jan. 22 performance was more impressive than Wilt's 100-point night in 1962 because of the variety of ways he scored. He made 7 of 13 three-pointers, he was 18 of 20 from the free throw line, he drove the basket and he hit a number of mid-range jumpers. He did it all. What Wilt did was awesome, but he did it with a more limited arsenal.

The word "selfish" often comes up when people describe Kobe as a player. I disagree. Right now, given their roster, the Lakers benefit from as much offense as Kobe can produce. This was also the case with Wilt before he finally joined a talented Lakers team. In certain cases, a team wants a superstar to do whatever he can in the hope that the rest of the team can complement him and escape with a win. Kobe doesn't want to shoot the ball every time he comes down the court. His three championship rings came about when he played with Shaquille O'Neal, who was an offensive cog in that machine. Obviously, they were able to play together pretty effectively.

While I feel Kobe's accomplishment was more staggering than Wilt's, my opinion has nothing to do with Wilt's height advantage in his era. Sure, Wilt was physically superior to everyone on the court, but that was just one mark of his dominance. It's been like that with Shaquille O'Neal his whole career, and I don't see people playing down his achievements.

I also don't put much stock in the conspiracy theory that Wilt's teammates plotted to get the big man 100. Growing up in New York and going to Madison Square Garden regularly, I used to watch those early 60's Knicks teams that Wilt scored his 100 against quite a bit. They were terrible teams and played no defense. Wilt's Philadelphia Warriors teammates were no slouches, but it made sense to have the offense go through Wilt every trip down court — they needed as much scoring from him as they could get.

I think one of the most impressive aspects of Kobe's performance was that he did it in an era when millions of people worldwide either watched the game or saw the highlights. When Wilt hit the century mark, it was in Hershey, Pa., and only 4,000 or so fans saw the game. It was on the radio, but most people found out about it the next day reading the newspaper. That Kobe's feat was done with the world watching and under intense news-media scrutiny means that it will most likely resonate more than Wilt's game ever did.

As incredible as Kobe's night was, and as dominant as he's been all season long, this brand of basketball can't continue with winning results. Kobe's got one heck of a motor, but eventually exhaustion's going to set in. If I were Lakers Coach Phil Jackson, I would tell Kobe, "We're going to get you some help." Obviously, Kobe's going to be a target wherever he goes. Opponents are going to be double-teaming, maybe even triple-teaming him. His teammates are going to have to step up, or the Lakers need to look for outside help.

I don't think an individual-based team can ever win a championship in today's N.B.A. Michael Jordan was able to do many of the things that Kobe does, but things didn't turn around for the Chicago Bulls until Scottie Pippen's game started to develop and guys like Horace Grant, B. J. Armstrong and John Paxson came into their own. They established a high defensive standard and the offensive balance they needed to win.

Kobe's 81-point game should without a doubt stand alongside Wilt's 100 as one of the greatest individual feats in league history, and who's to say he won't one day break Wilt's 44-year old record? The world will be watching and waiting.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame and a 19-time All-Star, is the author, most recently, of "Brothers in Arms: The Epic Story of the 761st Tank Battalion, World War II's Forgotten Heroes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/opinion/18abdul-jabbar.html
Click to expand...

Easy · Feb 18, 2006

I don't see how Kareem's article is a "rebuttal." The only thing they don't agree is how Kobe's 81 points stacks against Wilt's 100. (Oh, and about defense in the old days.) But they both say Kobe can't win by himself. While Oscar rants about "today's NBA" in general, Kareem just focuses on Kobe's situation.

tigermission1 · Feb 18, 2006

Big O is full of himself, I saw him on "Quiet Frankly" with Steven A. Smith and he kept scoffing and going on about he would "destroy" today's defensive sets and "easily average 50 ppg" for a whole season.

While those old-timers are great and all, I always find some of them to seem almost bitter and always down on today's stars. They need to get over themselves, it's a different era.

durvasa · Feb 18, 2006

Oscar Robertson is pretty arrogant. Offenses certainly appear more stangant nowadays than in the 60s. He doesn't explain why he thinks it's more attributable to bad offense than good defense.

I've seen games from the 60s (not many, but some). There was practically no defense played outside of about 18 feet. Teams didn't bother to get back and play transistion defense most of the time. It was just a completely different mindset.

Players like Kobe Bryant or LeBron James or Tracy McGrady (when he's in a good mood) could have scored at will in that era.

Rocket River · Feb 18, 2006

Didn't they change what they consider an assist over the years?

What is the NBA about . . competition or entertainment
FANS drive the league

Wasn't Detroit V Spurs one of the lowest rated Finals in a while?
People want to complain . . ooo the fans are so stupid
the fans . . .they sooo uneducated

well . .. if not for those fans . . .your favorite sport would
get the coverage of MLS
So How about we give those fans just a LITTLE BIT of respect

I tell you . . sometimes hearing guys scream about what FANS should
be seeing and WANTING to see

It is like watching a good Movie and listening to some *ssclown
complain about the lighting, the splicing and the editing of the film
B*tching that is was a TECHNICAL craphole
and care nothing about the acting, storyline or the 'glamorous exciting' stuff
than TRUE FANS of film would not be as interested in.

Rocket River

apostolic3 · Feb 18, 2006

I love the Big "O". My father taught him in high school. I love what he represents in NBA history and in basketball history my hometown. It's too bad that by the time I was old enough to start watching the NBA, Oscar was over-the-hill.

That said, I cringe when he comments on today's NBA. He projects very poorly and comes off as somewhat bitter and very arrogant. In his day, players were financially rewarded and motivated by the success of their teams. Nowadays, players are rewarded for individual performance and marketability. I understand his point on how the eras differ. But when he says what would happen if he played today, someone should stick a sock in his mouth.

This article isn't bad at all. Probably some of the best commentary he's made recently.

DaDakota · Feb 18, 2006

This is not surprising, you are getting the opinions of 2 opposites on the basketball floor.

One was truly one of the most unselfish players ever to play the game, the other one was just the opposite, very selfish.

The article represents EXACTLY how they played. However, the irony is the selfish player won a lot more championships.

DD

francis 4 prez · Feb 19, 2006

and the unselfish guy wouldn't have won any if not for the selfish guy.

you gotta admit, it's pretty hard to take anything the Big O says about basketball today seriously after paragraphs like this:

So here's what today's game looks like: The ball goes inbounds, whoever gets it tries to make something happen on his own, and everybody else stands and watches. More often than not, the player with the ball looks for the three-point shot. And nobody guards him! Why wouldn't you try to stop someone from scoring three points? Even if it's a low-percentage shot, make it an even lower-percentage shot. Or is that too much like work?
Click to expand...

that's what it looks like oscar? really? a jacked up 3 after no passing and nobody bothers to play D? yeah, that's the ticket.

Desert Scar · Feb 20, 2006

Kareem was selfish the way Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq were selfish, taking a lot of high % shots. I wouldn't choose to use the word "selfish" that way. To me the selfish player takes a lower % shot than is available to a teammate if they take the extra step--none of these guys do that IMO.

HayesStreet · Feb 21, 2006

Any reason why a guy who averaged a triple double for a full season wouldn't 'destroy' today's defensive sets? My money would be on the Big O.

Forums

Point-Counterpoint: The Big O and Kareem go tete-a-tete in the Times on Kobe

SamFisher Member

Easy Boban Only Fan
Supporting Member

tigermission1 Member

durvasa Member

Rocket River Member

apostolic3 Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

francis 4 prez Member

Desert Scar Member

HayesStreet Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Point-Counterpoint: The Big O and Kareem go tete-a-tete in the Times on Kobe

SamFisher Member

Easy Boban Only Fan Supporting Member

tigermission1 Member

durvasa Member

Rocket River Member

apostolic3 Member

DaDakota Balance wins Supporting Member

francis 4 prez Member

Desert Scar Member

HayesStreet Member

Share This Page

Easy Boban Only Fan
Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member