Don't know if this is the right forum, but it's a subject that merits debate and discussion, if not the slinging of poo, and the journal's got a nice commentary on the state of play in today's NBA. IMHO, the best thing that could happen to the league this spring is if the Kings and Nets end up in the finals. not that they're my two favorite teams, but at least they play a style of team ball that's fun to watch, and each practices the lost art of the bounce pass to perfection. can anyone on the rockets throw a bounce entry pass??? http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108389097578204875,00.html?mod=weekend_journal_primary_hs -- Dead Ball By GEOFFREY NORMAN May 7, 2004 The Los Angeles Lakers made a run, Wednesday night in San Antonio, and almost came back after being down by 16 at halftime. Great teams, of course, do these things and, in fact, often finish the job. But while the Lakers have great players on their payroll -- not just Kobe and Shaq (basketball superstars go by first names only) but also Karl Malone and Gary Payton -- they are not a great team. And this is unfortunate because right now the National Basketball Association desperately needs one. Two would be better. For the past few seasons it has been evident, even to the least attentive sports fan, that the NBA is in a state of decline. Something has gone out of the game -- and its image. Last year's playoffs for the championship drew the lowest ratings in league history. True, the San Antonio Spurs, which won in six games, are a small-market team. But their opponents were the New Jersey Nets, so the problem wasn't strictly market size. The malaise goes deeper than unlucky demographics. The decline of the NBA can be empirically demonstrated with downward-trending ratings and revenues. Still, those whose job it is to deny the obvious -- NBA Commissioner David Stern, for instance -- will say that the reason for such trends is that people have so many more entertainment options. There are all those cable channels now, don't you see. There may be something to this, but not in a way that lets the NBA off the hook. Many pro-basketball games are so poorly played and tediously long that the fingers seem drawn irresistibly to the remote. You find yourself seeking relief in "The Battle of Stalingrad" on the History Channel or the food channel's primer on how to make jerk sauce. Even some stranger eating worms or getting fired by Donald Trump seems preferable to enduring 10 minutes of undisciplined motion, interrupted occasionally by a dunk, some chest-thumping, a shove, a technical foul, a missed free throw and a beer commercial. One feels obliged to note that there was cable when Michael Jordan was in his prime, and if his Bulls were playing for a championship they would have won the ratings race against anything from the final episode of "Friends" to Britney Spears undressing on MTV. The problem is with the product, not the consumer. The first game of the Spurs/Lakers quarter-final series was played on Sunday afternoon and, according to Nielsen, drew a 4.9 rating, which translates into 7.3 million viewers. That afternoon's NASCAR race scored a 6.1 rating and 9.8 million viewers. The contrast is especially telling when you consider that this is probably the most desirable matchup in the NBA's unending postseason, with each series lasting longer, it seems, than the Florida recount. Before it is all over, Sandra Day O'Connor may have to decide the NBA champion, and by then nobody will care. Between them, the Spurs and Lakers account for all of the past five championships. Tim Duncan, the Spur's star, was the league's Most Valuable Player for the 2003 season. The Lakers stars, of course, possess a celebrity that extends beyond the realm of sport. Shaq endorses everything that costs money, and Kobe did too until he got into trouble with the law. Just as people who didn't know anything about the game would tune in to watch Michael Jordan, nonfans ought to be drawn to Shaq and Kobe, who has been called the heir to Jordan's throne. Plainly, it isn't working out that way. Perfect for L.A., if not for basketball, these Lakers resemble a troubled film crew on location, with feuding stars, an ever more temperamental, gnomic director (coach Phil Jackson) and egos ceaselessly banging into each other so that the real point of the thing gets lost in the din. Great material for one of those fan magazines where celebrity is its own justification. Who cares if Kobe unilaterally decides to take over a game and plays as though making a pass to the open man might cost him a shoe endorsement? It doesn't matter because...he's Kobe. The "Showtime" Laker teams of the late 1980s were built around Magic Johnson, who generally led the league in assists. They ran the fast break, and they moved without the ball. Their rivals, on the opposite coast, were built around another great all-around player, Larry Bird. The Celtics/Lakers rivalry was one of the greatest in the history of sport. A matchup of great stars -- true -- but also of great, and distinctive, teams. When they met in the finals, people changed dinner plans so they wouldn't miss a game. The Celtics of the 1960s and the Knicks of the 1970s could inspire such loyal devotion, too, and for similar reasons. With the Lakers now down 0-2 and on the ropes, it looks as though it may come down to the San Antonio Spurs and the Detroit Pistons in this year's finals. This is a matchup that might be challenged in the ratings by "Animal Planet." The Pistons and the Nets played a 78-56 contest the other night that was more grueling to watch than even "The Bachelor." So what has happened, in the years since Magic and Bird, or the Celtics' Havlicek and Russell, or the great Knicks teams of Frazier, Reed and a man named Bradley who later ran for president? Those New York teams in particular excited café society and began the talk about how professional basketball was the new national sport. It was urban, hip, intelligent and graceful. There was a kind of sophistication attached to the game. What it has become since then is..."gangstaball." You hear all sorts of theories. Gregg Easterbrook, the writer and astute fan, believes that the NBA engineered its own woes when it began playing kids right out of high school. No discipline, no skills, just lots of athleticism mixed generously with immaturity. These teenagers, he writes, "lack training in fundamentals...won't listen to coaches...launch crazy off-balance shots...refuse to do anything but go one-on-one, and endlessly try to mega-dunk." Certainly something essential to the game -- its combination of speed, finesse and choreography -- has lost out to muscle and artless aggression. (Baseball players aren't the only athletes suspected of using steroids.) It takes time and maturity to make a team out of individual stars, and team personality is more mysterious and subtle than the personality of a single athlete, even if he is good enough to have only one name. Those great Knick teams were much more than the sum of their parts, and that was the fascination. There was some kind of deep art at work. Fans sensed possibilities and valued, above all, a display of control in the midst of all that motion. After all, if you just want movement, collisions and chaos between the beer commercials, you can watch NASCAR. Mr. Norman is a contributing editor of National Geographic Adventure.
He's got a point, even though there will be some here who cry "racism" when he mentioned the term "ganstaball."
Interesting article, except I think he's wrong on just about every point. He seems like another nostalgic writer who had become too accustomed to a league without defense and wishes he could turn the hands of time back.
lakers and celtics in the mid 80s, pistons in late 80s, early 90s, and jordan's bulls didn't play defense?
He has several good points and, though the term may be distasteful to some, "gangstaball" is an apt description for some of the crap we see on the hardwood night in and night out. There is a reason that people like (I am not bashing, just making an observation) SF3 seem to want to iso, drible the air out of the ball, and try for an acrobatic shot that will either miss everything (hoping for a foul) or end up on SportsCenter because it was so spectacular. One of the things I loved about the Rockets during their championship runs was the teamwork. Nobody seemed caught up in personal statistics or highlight reels. Dream always got his numbers, but what player (or 2 or 3 players for that matter) was going to stop him in his prime? The other players, though, just filled their roles, played great team defense, and passed crisply and cleanly to the open man. On any given night, Thorpe, Maxwell, Smith, Cassell, Horry, Drexler, or Elie were capable of getting hot and lighting up the opposition (anyone remember Horry's 3 point barrage against Milwaukee?). The key was that nobody was selfish, everyone was only interested in winning, and everyone was willing to put aside their (considerable) egos.
I remember the Pistons playing hard defense, but the other teams you mentioned never struck me as hard-core defensive teams. Riley like to play up tempo (Showtime) in LA, Jackson has never been a defensive coach, and I just don't remember the Celtics (of the 80s) playing that much defense.
uptempo and defense are not mutually exclusive, and in fact i think the nets are a pretty good defensive team- they're just too small up front to compete with most of the elite teams in the west, or detroit and indiana for that matter. you're absolutly right about the championship rockets. SF3's boddice ripping moment in game four after he tied the game is a prime example of what's wrong with the current crop of rockets, and most of the NBA as well.
I agree with Easterbrook in the WSJ article: "...believes that the NBA engineered its own woes when it began playing kids right out of high school. No discipline, no skills, just lots of athleticism mixed generously with immaturity. These teenagers, he writes, "lack training in fundamentals...won't listen to coaches...launch crazy off-balance shots...refuse to do anything but go one-on-one, and endlessly try to mega-dunk."
I don't see how it's all that much different from Mario Elie's Kiss of Death, Karl Malone's "First Down" gesture, Mutumbo's Finger Wag, Miller's celebrated gesturing & talking with Spike Lee, Jordan's smug little wink/shrugs with his buddy Ahmad, Larry Bird's notorious trash talking (he was widely reputed as being one of the worst in the NBA); Walton's ridiculous pointing up and down gesture during the 86 Finals (burned into my young brain... )..........etc. Granted, the rox lost that game in OT, but I'm not talking about Francis as a player here or the Rockets as currently consitituted, I'm just talking about the gesture itself.
I was referring there to the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s. The Pistons started a revolution on defense that the Bulls, Rockets, and every other champion and also-ran has followed to some extent. His obvious Jordan-worship is a separate issue.
Does anyone remember what the NBA was like when the Rockets won the championship. There wasn't much offense and most of those guys were four year college players so please stop blaming high schoolers. McGrady, Kobe, Garnett, Lebron, are all some of the most skilled players in the NBA. Its a cop out and makes for a nice column but it really has no merrit when you look at the facts. Offense has been on the decline for a while. And yes "gangsta ball" is offensive Yosemite Slam.
It was Pat Riley and satellite TV that allowed scouts to stay in their offices and break down every team's plays and quirks. The unsportsmanlike gestures actually amount to charisma and marketability. People want Kobe's style over Tim Duncan's substance. Unfortuneately, there's not enough substance in today's product. It's said that in a 7 game playoff series, the better team will always win. That's truer with today's methods of gathering scouting information. But what that amounts to is a lower paced game that's intentionally disrupting the other team's style and more importantly less drama and excitement for the viewer.
Shocking that you found it so....I mean real Gangsta's are white. Al Capone, Baby Face Nelson..etc..etc.. DD
Get rid of the 3 point line all together. That will force players to develop mid-range games and fundamental skills (like many of the foreign players have) instead of just jacking up 3's all night. I think it would also eliminate the "long rebound". Rebounding is a lost art it seems. I think it's because the long rebound has rendered boxing out irrelevant . Just my opinion.
Don't like Malone's or Mutumbo's gestures either, and although i'm not a fan of trash talking in general, i'm not sure it's quite the same thing. The Kiss of Death stands up, because the team backed it up- we won the game. Francis' preening was exposed for what it was when the team fell apart in OT.
Just as shocking that you didn't. I'm sure he meant al capone by using "gangsta" instead of "gangster". the league is so full of white players. Come on DD, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and your point is stupid and has nothing to do with what the writer meant and you know it.
i could see how the term could be offensive if it applied to all players of a particular ethinic group, but in this case it clearly applies to particularly childish proponents of style over substance. i don't think the writer was referring to tim duncan or tony parker.
It's undeniable that there's a racial subtext that usually permeates this debate though, and is inherent from that choice of phrasing. These same arguments were made in the 70's, much more openly: critics said the NBA was too "black"; not black as in skin color (though that may have been part of it), but black as in too affiliated with stereotypical 70's superfly type views of black culture as violent, drug addicted --- it's not really much different than describing the NBA today as "gangstaball", same meaning, different words. race matters.
I don't mind the writer calling these players "selfish, immature, disrespectful of the game" or whatever but what does "gangsta" have to do with it. We've had two players in Hockey in the past five years do something on the ice that would merrit criminal charges, but no one ever uses the term gangsta when describing Hockey, not to mention that Hockey has a similar problem of too much defense and too many bangers but no one ever uses the term "gangsta" when describing Hockey. It should have been left out and doesn't even really have a point. I would even have been alright with "streetball".
