Did you ever see that one ESPN interview with Michael Jordan sometime after his career was over, probably for some stupid shoe release or something, where he mentioned that he's felt unfulfiled since leaving basketball because he's lost the opportunity to create? I remember the interview fairly well but I can't find it anywhere on the internet to prove that it existed. I think Jordan was wearing all white against a white background - which is totally plausible knowing his style. In the same interview Jordan also mentionned that even though he could no longer physically challenge Kobe and Lebron in a game of one-on-one, "mentally [he] could whip their butts." Does he mean that he understands the game better than they do or does he mean that he can imagine himself beating them? Because if it's the latter than I can imagine myself beating all three of them at once, just like I probably imagined this whole interview from the past. Let's pretend I didn't, though.
Anyway, I used to think MJ's "missing the opportunity to create" quote about why he missed basketball was just a really, really self-important way of saying that he wishes he still got attention for running, jumping, and sticking out his tongue. But maybe he actually had some sort of point with what he said. Specifically, maybe "creativity" is an actual part of playing basketball. Creativity in playing basketball would then refer to literally being able to create opportunities for success: to secure points, steals, and, ultimately and obviously, wins. Similarly, maybe this is what's meant by the tired argument as to why American soccer players aren't more competitive globally; that our players lack "creativity."
Additionally, I would say that maybe creativity is an overlooked part of what separates franchise players from everyone else. It's certain players' supreme ability to create new things on the court that wins games, attracts fans and sells tickets for the franchize (like, an actual basketball organization - not your best friend). We're attracted to players like Blake Griffin and LeBron James because of their sick dunks. We're attracted to players like Ricky Rubio and Steve Nash because of their sick plays. And we're attracted to players like Drew Gooden and Vince Carter because of their sick neck beards.
Furthermore, I'd argue that franchise/creative players have to be able to exhibit such creativity consistently enough to be reliable, so that their teammates begin to trust them in crunch times. Franchise players require a significant creative capacity that allow them to separate themselves from everyone else on a consistent basis by making opportunities for success. So, someone like Vince Carter never made the total transition because he was only able to demonstrate his creativity occasionaly through sporadic dunks...and only dunks (and now his neck beard). So, maybe the example of Vince Carter is really making more of the point that "the guy" has to demonstrate not only "consistency" but "a variety of skills" and "the quality of not being made of glass" rather than the territory of "creativity" that I had intended to stay in. Let's all forget Vince Carter. But not his neck beard.
So, obviously I'm willing to concede that creativity is not the whole story when it comes to determining if some dude is a franchise player or not. But I would INSIST that creating is potentially a valuable and overlooked intangible quality in determining "The Go-To Guy."
Thanks to the NBA League Pass (which again, really ought to include NBA TV for the broadband subscribers), I've been doing a lot of thinking about a lot of teams I don't normally do a lot of thinking about. Namely, there are some interesting teams out there that are compelling precisely because it's not totally clear if they have a player who is creative enough to be their franchise player/go-to-guy. So here are three teams that fit that bill.
THREE PLAYOFF TEAMS THAT THINK THEY HAVE FRANCHISE PLAYERS BUT PROBABLY DON'T...YET
HOUSTON
Kevin Martin! K-MART! The only A-ROD-like-nickname that actually works. He did shoot like 600 free throws last year so that means that he creates for himself. Is he a franchise dude or not? I can barely watch most Rockets games because they make me sad for some reason.
PORTLAND
LaMarcus Aldrige. I think he can make the jump to "the guy," but he needs to do it more often. Sure can hit the open shot when someone sets him up for it...which is certainly competent...but that's kind of the opposite of creativity when you think about it. I've also noticed he does this thing a lot where he "calls for the ball." What it is, basically, is that when someone else has the ball he, like, waves at them and stuff until they pass it to him. Then he tries to shoot over the guy guarding him. He does that a lot, so whatever. You tell me if that's a creative way of existing on the basketball.
INDIANA
Danny Granger might be there. He can legitimately create his own opportunities from what I've seen. But I'm not sure anyone is ordering a Danny Granger FatHead to put up yet. Unless Danny Granger needs decorations that are just as awesome as his home improvement project. Also, I wanted to mention that Danny Granger got a 30 on his ACT and majored in civil engineering (this is how I know that) - so mentally he could whoop LeBron and Kobe's butts', too - if by mentally you mean taking a college entrance exam or building a bridge.
So, that FatHead reference made me consider another point: with Martin, Aldrige, Granger, do you think I'm biased because these guys aren't exactly household names yet? I'd concede that maybe this is because they all play in small markets and we all know I hate the real America. But maybe the reason that they're not household names is because they might not ever totally make that leap to being "the guy". For instance, the combined total years in the league for these three: 21. The combined total All-Star Appearances for these three: 1 (Granger in 2009). If they had totally arrived as franchise guys, people would have noticed. Yet maybe these effects are confounding. I'd go in to that more but I'm already being equivocal enough.
Honorable mention: PHILADELPHIA
THREE BAD TEAMS WITH PLAYERS WHO ARE OBVIOUSLY CREATIVE ENOUGH TO BE FRANCHISE GUYS
GOLDEN STATE
Steph Curry and Monta Ellis. 2 franchise players at the same position? Who both need the ball? YEAH RIGHT! That could never work.
PHOENIX
Steve Nash. He's really good on offense.
(By the way, here's maybe the best statistical argument that Steve Nash is bad at defense: Did you know that Kevin Johnson had 2.5 times as many steals during his time with the Suns than Steve Nash has had in his Suns tenure, despite the fact that KJ played in 17 fewer Phoenix games (700 to 683 as of last week)? I understand that KJ was a freak because I play NBA JAM regularly, but still - 2.5 times!?)
MILWAUKEE
Sorry, Australia, it's not Andrew Bogut. It's Brendan Jennings. BJ looked pretty decent against the Pistons which is saying a lot if this was 1989. But he also looked pretty awesome against the Heat which is saying a lot because this is 2012. Will he look awesome against the Grizzlies in 2016? DOG GONE IT DAVID THAT'S THE FUTURE HOW COULD I POSSIBLY KNOW THAT!?
...But my guess is yes. He will look that good. He's a unique dude to play the position. Unique more-so than the way we are all unique from one another, but unique in that he manages to score at will, look to score constantly, and somehow not totally submarine his team. I like watching him. It's also cool that he quit college to play in Europe. That was a unique decision.
Honorable mention: NEW JERSEY (Deron)
So, David, what do you think of all of this? How do you feel? What drives you? Do teams even need "franchise players"? Is the whole concept an illusion? Is creativity a real part of sports? How's our mutual friend Chapin doing at law school? Do you miss him? Does everything I just wrote apply to WNBA? How about just the Mystics? Obviously not the Lynx, but maybe the Liberty? I don't know, maybe not the Liberty.
Bryan
No comments:
Post a Comment