I enjoy lists. I enjoy basketball. I enjoy greatness. So, for a long time, I have been trying to evaluate and rank the greatest NBA players ever. It's difficult because there is no single metric that will give a consistent or accurate result. I appreciate victories and championships, but basketball is a team sport and basing your rankings solely on championships will lead to outlandish conclusions like Horry was better than Jordan or Pippen was equal to Jordan or Karl Malone was worse than Steve Kerr... a lot worse. So, winning can't be the only factor. We can look at cumulative stats, but this weighs far too heavily on health and longevity, rather than tying a career to success or dominance. We can look at standard metrics like per game stats, but that does not factor in a lifetime of playing great basketball and does not bear sufficient resemblance to impact on the Court (especially on defense). So, we often look to advanced metrics, and some are proving valuable, like ESPN's Real Plus Minus (or Player Efficiency Rating) or Value Over Replacement Player. But there are no advanced metrics that are close to giving us a cross-generational ranking of the greatest players of all time. Even in advanced metrics, there are subjective elements (e.g. which data you choose to enter or how much you to choose to weigh that data), which makes it increasingly important to verify conclusions using identifiable markers (or great individual basketball players); in the post-merger era, if the list does not include Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Bird, or Shaq in the top 10, the stat probably requires adjustment. I found a very simple system that works, even though it probably shouldn't. So, I'll give you my rankings with a simple chart, then I'll explain the chart, hypothesize why the list works (generally), describe my impressions of what it means to be this great, and then I'll delve a bit into the predictive power of the list, and who among active players may rise onto the list. So, without further ado:
Players Finals MVPs MVPs Totals FYI: Titles/Finals
1. Jordan 6 5 11 (6/6)
2. Kareem** 2 6 8 (6/10)
3. LeBron 3 4 7 (3/7)
4. Magic 3 3 6 (5/9)
5. Russell** 0+ 5 5 (11/12)
6. Duncan 3 2 5 (5/6)
7. Bird 2 3 5 (3/5)
8. Chamberlain** 1 4 5 (2/6)
9. Shaq 3 1 4 (4/6)
10. Moses 1 3 4 (1/2)
11. Dr. J** 0 3.5* 3.5 (1/3) & (ABA 2/2)
12. Kobe 2 1 3 (5/7)
13. Hakeem 2 1 3 (2/3)
*- Julius Erving had 2.5 ABA MVPs & 2 ABA Playoffs MVPs
+ Award Named After Bill Russell
** Substantially pre-merger awards
For players having post-merger success adequate to enter the list, here are their career totals:
(1) Michael Jordan- 11
(2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar- 8
(3) LeBron James- 7
(4) Magic Johnson- 6
(5) Tim Duncan- 5
(6) Larry Bird- 5
(7) Shaquille O'Neal- 4
(8) Moses Malone- 4
(9) Kobe Bryant- 3
(10) Hakeem Olajuwon- 3
Let me start the analysis by explaining the basic system. Add Finals MVPs (which are a pretty good marker for greatness by themselves, particularly post-merger, as they account for contributions to ultimate basketball success) to MVPs (which is a good marker for season-long dominance). A player must have a total value of 3 such achievements to qualify for the list. Then give the tie-breaker to the greater number of Finals MVPs. There are three adjustments that I made to the list pertaining to pre-merger issues (the merger of the ABA and the NBA that occurred in 1976). (1) Willis Reed is omitted for a mild overvaluation of his 3 achievements, which leaves him just below the minimum threshold, (2) Julius Erving ("Dr. J") has essentially half of his ABA accomplishments accounted for in addition to his NBA accomplishments, and (3) Bill Russell has an automatic life-long tie breaker for the NBA Finals MVP being named after him.
The pre-merger adjustments make the list more palatable because... (a) the Finals MVP was not awarded until Russell stopped winning trophies. So, access to the award totals was more limited; (b) the NBA Finals MVP award was named after Russell for his career playoff success; (c) the level of competition was lower in part because of: less attention to basketball, less money for basketball players, less sophisticated approaches to the game (often meaning less focus on defense and more focus on pace); (d) there were less teams, sometimes as few as 10, which partially offsets the lower competition (but not fully), but it also means winning a championship often involved winning two rounds of competition, rather than four; (e) for about ten years, much of the league's talent was drained by the new ABA league somewhat affecting Kareem's and Wilt Chamberlain's accomplishments and largely affecting Reed's and Erving's achievements. All of these factors, in my estimation, roughly neutralize each other with respect to Russell who is fully credited for his 5 awards (in which the voting players may have partially accounted for his playoff excellence) provided he gets the tie-breaker for having the Finals MVP award named after him.
The next issue is whether to mildly discount Wilt's and Kareem's awards for largely receiving those awards during the time of the ABA. Wilt is already on the lower end of 5 awards (only 1 Finals MVP), so for the time being, it does not make sense to reduce his achievements... and if there was a Finals MVP Award, Russell may not have won the regular season award so often. Abdul Jabbar is also already on the lower end of 8 (only 2 Finals MVPs), so if we reduced his total to 7.5, it would not impact LeBron's (or most others') ability to pass him. So, while we acknowledge that Kareem probably should have a mild reduction, for now, we can leave him on the list as is. The more complicated questions are what to do with Dr. J's and Willis Reed's awards (who happened to receive a Finals MVP Award quite literally for showing up to Game 7) who were drastically impacted by the existence of two competing leagues. If you devalue Reed's NBA accomplishments just a bit to offset the mildly reduced talent, he ends up somewhere near 3, like 2.8 which is NOT 3. This means Reed unfortunately does not meet the criteria necessary to make this list. Undoubtedly, he was a great player who accomplished a great deal (won 2 Finals MVPs, 1 MVP, and his Knicks won 2/3 of Finals appearances in the NBA during the time of the ABA), which helps his case among the other great players historically. But this list is reserved for the historically exceptional players, identified by a milestone, which is the value of 3 of these awards (again- while Reed technically has 3, the value of those 3 is slightly lower). Dr. J's accomplishments are even more difficult to discern as, in a weaker league, the ABA, he won 3 MVPs (1 of which was a tie, so 2.5 MVPs) and 2 Playoff MVPs during years when his team won the ABA title, but that award is not even referred to as a Finals MVP. So, the most fair method of accounting for his ABA achievements is essentially counting 1 of the 2 metrics. Luckily, it matters little which metric is counted because his 2.5 MVPs are worth approximately 2 Finals MVPs. He also won 1 MVP in the NBA, so he ends up with the value of 3.5 MVPs (or 1 MVP and 2 Finals MVP equivalents with other awards as tie breakers). So, that's how we end up with the 3 modifications to the list.
It's easy to create a terrific list of the greatest players ever. It's much harder to do it based on objective calculations or criteria. So, yes the list is subjective. But, it is tallied entirely objectively post-merger, and otherwise largely objectively. And it happens to be pretty easy to calculate, especially going forward. Each year, the relevant voters make subjective analyses about who is the best player... or who was the best player in the Finals. Not only are these awards subjective, but in my opinion (and probably the opinion of most observers), they are very frequently wrong. Steve Nash likely didn't deserve two MVPs, nor did D. Rose necessarily deserve one. Pierce or Parker may not have deserved their respective Finals MVP. Further, because of the randomness involved (excess award noise), a single award (or even two of them) says almost nothing about your place among the greatest players of all time. Andre Iguodala is a lifelong very good player who played really well in one finals series and may have been one great game 7 away from winning a second Finals MVP. However, at some point, the accumulation of these awards does reflect some level of sustained legendary greatness. Moreover, it's fascinating how the voters mix the inaccuracies of generically over-rewarding talent with voter fatigue to almost neutralize the negative impacts of each. For example, Bird, Magic, and Duncan were each, in all likelihood, the greatest players on their respective teams during the bulk of their careers and worthy of being in the pantheon of greatest players of all time, but each was on a team with incredibly talented players and/or incredibly talented coaches that were occasionally as valuable as they were. And giving these elite players unfettered credit for their many many championships seems unfair in comparison to the import of crediting Jordan or LeBron (who were also on some incredibly talented teams), whose team's fates were exceptionally linked to their individual dominance. The voters seem to have subconsciously or instinctively recognized this valuable distinction, as Jordan and LeBron got all of their team's Finals MVPs (thus far), while Bird got 2/3 of his available Finals MVPs and Duncan and Magic got 3/5 of their available Finals MVPs.
I have heard objections about my adjustments to the list, objections about an individual not making the list, like Jerry West (dynamic playoff performer), Oscar Robertson (per game stats), Karl Malone (cumulative stats), Kevin Garnett (defensive dominance), and even Dirk Nowitzki (offensive efficiency), and objections to a few of the players on the list, or their placement on it... all with varying degrees of persuasiveness. And personally, I might tweak the list such as swap Kobe and Moses Malone, but I'm willing to accept that my own beliefs and thoughts may be less valuable than having and employing a functional definitive roughly accurate system. And this is the only objective calculation that I have ever seen that accounts for our collective nearly-objective criteria (along with my admittedly subjective criteria) for greatness. So, whether the list should or should not work, in my estimation, it does happen to work. And for obvious reasons, the list is delightfully spread almost equally across the eras.
Okay, so generally my understanding of "best players" is based upon the players we would choose, if we wanted to start a team to win the most championships (or put us in a position to win the most championships), using the amount of time played by that player (factoring in injuries, rest, etc.), the player's dominance during their actual career, and the timelessness of that player, (i.e. if the player was drafted with the equipment, training techniques, coaching, player caliber, and rules/officiating of some arbitrarily chosen era, he would still be relatively dominant). The most important hypothetical metrics involved are titles (and wins) over standard or average replacement player (and this is complicated by the uniqueness of position players, regular season value vs. playoff value, historical time frames, etc.). So, a player's individual brilliance over a peak period of time and quality longevity both add significant value to a team. Ideally, you have a player like Kareem who is a unique talent, incredibly dominant for a time, but who also keeps you in the running for decades, thereby adding a great deal of value (and potential wins and titles) over his career. Jordan was better by most estimations (because of Jordan's sheer dominance, which is adequately reflected by the list), but Kareem's extended amazing play makes his career a great mix of the various factors of NBA greatness. So, Kareem has remarkable numbers of awards, championships, cumulative totals, per game averages, and advanced metrics in both the regular season and the playoffs. It's fitting that Kareem spans the pre-merger and post-merger eras and is so high on the list... and that in order to pass him, LeBron will need to extend his greatness further and longer.
The future is unclear. LeBron could win another MVP or more likely another Finals MVP to pass Kareem on the list... or not. Further, while Curry is currently closer to making the list than Durant, I would not argue that Curry has had a better career. But... if Curry earns another MVP or a Finals MVP from winning a second championship, I would certainly argue he outpaced Durant and entered the discussion for the greatest players of all time (having a career similar to Isiah Thomas's, but with greater regular season dominance). And if Durant, who is in his prime, could have a great year and win both awards in one year, he would deservedly vault onto this list. Or maybe, voter fatigue sets in, and Curry wins no more MVPs, and neither Durant nor Curry win any more championships, and they end up merely having really terrific careers. Either way works, as either player might, by the end of their careers, merit landing in the top 20 players of all time, but not necessarily the top 15. I'm at least open to letting their individual/team accomplishments and award-winning achievements make that determination... for now.
Showing posts with label Sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sports. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2016
Monday, July 5, 2010
Free Agents
Happy July 4th kids,
I hope you have been enjoying the most entertaining off-season in the history of sports (as far as I can tell) and are thanking two specific players. These two basketball superstars have indicated their willingness to leave their teams. In basketball, more than any other team sport, an individual is able to influence a team's success. Not that one person can win a championship, he can't... but one person makes an enormous impact. Two great players surrounded by several solid players are very capable of winning a championship. Three very good players surrounded by good players can win a championship. There are occasional years when a defense will be totally dominant with a competent offense allowing teams to win (like the Detroit Pistons in 2004, Duncan's 2000 trio, Olajuwon's 1st championship or the Bad Boys 2 championships.) But most of the time, teams have 2-3 great players and complementary players (Malone-Erving, Bird-McHale-Parish, Magic-Abdul Jabbar-Worthy, Jordan-Pippen, Olajuwon-Drexler, Duncan-Robinson, Shaq-Kobe, Wade-Shaq, Pierce-Garnett-Allen, Kobe-Gasol.)
It's clear there is no formula for championships, but it's also clear that having a cast of two to three great players and a solid supporting cast places a team in the best situation to win. So, if I was a general manager, I would move heaven and earth to land LeBron. A few stragglers were so disappointed by LeBron's Game 5 performance against the Celtics where it appeared he was not even trying that they are down on King James... but many great players have games like this. Kobe has had games like this in the past including one where he was tired of being criticized for shooting too much and decided to show his value by not participating in the offense, in an elimination play-off game against Phoenix a few years ago. He's human. So, is LeBron. Thus, moving heaven and earth seems like a small price to pay for such a young talent.
I'd argue that LeBron is the best player in basketball and Wade is the 2nd or third best player in basketball, but for the purposes of my discussion the exact placement is irrelevant as long as everyone is willing to concede that LeBron and Wade are 2 of the 5 best players in basketball. LeBron has 30 teams to choose from, 5 of which are in realistic contention: Cleveland, Chicago, New Jersey, Miami, New York. If all the basketball teams were exactly the same, he would certainly opt to play either in his home state of Ohio or the massive market of New York, but basketball-wise not all things are equal.
I think when a basketball player of LeBron's magnitude is considering a basketball destination, there are 3 primary concerns percolating through his mind. (1) What is best for him and the people he cares about (which is often just the player himself,) but players often consider where they can get the most money, big cities vs. suburbs, comfort level with a location, whether his family is settled, whether he likes or dislikes people in an organization, the weather... etc.? (2) where can he win the most championships, which relates to players, owners and coaching and (3) where can he best serve his legacy, whether he is beloved by his fans or hated by his fans and whether he is appreciated as a leader of a team and perhaps most importantly whether LeBron who has the talent to be regarded as a top 5 player of all time is regarded as such? (For example, if LeBron plays the rest of his career on Cleveland and never gets help and never wins a championship, and would go down in history as the best player to never win a championship and as merely a super-charged Dominique Wilkins. If he wins on a team with Wade and for some reason Wade is considered better historically, which is not likely but plausible, then he would go down as a super-charged Scottie Pippen. Neither of those scenarios would give his legacy the full appreciation of his natural ability, so optimally, he would win championships on a team with one or more other stars, which would make him more like Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson... as Magic played many of his years with Kareem Abdul Jabbar slightly past his dominant prime.)
Okay, let's start with money... because when anyone considers a job offer, that is usually at the top of the wish-list. Because of the collective bargaining agreement between the league owners and the players union, Cleveland can provide him with the highest salary, but not by as much as you think. There is an estimate that LeBron can be paid roughly $30 million more by Cleveland than any other team, but that is not accurate. There are two aspects to Cleveland's advantage (a) Cleveland can pay him a higher year to year percentage increase in salary. Over 5 years, this amounts to roughly $5 million. (b) Cleveland can sign him for an extra year, and if he is earning the maximum increase every year, than that last year would amount to something akin to $25 million.
The caveat to part (b) is that LeBron is young enough that he is likely to continue playing 5 years from now and he is good enough that he is likely to receive the maximum at that time under whatever contract he signs then... so he would be likely earn over $20 million that year anyway. Thus, the only major advantage of the $25 million is that it's guaranteed money, even though he is likely to earn most of that money anyway. The caveats to part (a) are that his salary increases in his next contract will use his current contract as a base and the year-to-year percentage increase will start from there, so if he leaves Cleveland, he will make less money in subsequent contracts. Additionally, the next collective bargaining agreement is likely to be harsher on player's salaries, so every year he has with this contract is a boon as opposed to his next contract. Basically, if he plays less than or equal to 5 years, then by signing with Cleveland he earned an extra $30 million, but if he plays more than 5 years at a high level, it's more likely that by signing with Cleveland now, he earns an extra $10-15 million over the duration of his career because his year-to-year salary increases would be larger if he signs with Cleveland now. I think the strategy of asking the best player in basketball to take less money than the maximum he can be paid shows hubris on the part of the Knicks or any organization that asked this on behalf of LeBron. People do not tend to give up free money. If he is willing to forego some of a max salary, like Tim Duncan did, that's considerate of him, but money is money whether it is his 2nd million or his 391st million. That extra million could go towards a charity of his choosing or a slightly nicer house or among the uber wealthy, each million is capable of earning many more millions. So, LeBron may choose to earn less than the max, but for an organization trying to earn billions of dollars off of him, to attempt to shame him into taking less than the maximum allotted salary is at best hypocritical.
But basketball players make a substantial portion of their income from endorsements, particularly a player as entertaining and charismatic as LeBron. According to Forbes magazine, if he came to New York, he would make a substantial amount more than he would if he went to any other location. However, the highest earning basketball players are the ones that the NBA endorses all year round, are superstars that win championships (and are supremely entertaining.) Michael Jordan was in the 3rd biggest market, but he earned the most money... even more than anyone from New York or Los Angeles because titles (and pizazz) garner attention. Being the superstar on a championship team is more valuable than being a superstar on a flailing failing New York Knicks. The Nets offer a counter-point that playing for a man who has international credentials would earn him more international money has some validity, but championships=international money, so championships come over expected endorsement money.
So, where does LeBron have the best opportunity to win championships? I would guess his best opportunity to win championships would be to play with Wade+Bosh and a collection of veterans and rookies who would want to play for a team with that core. The only recent comparison to a team like that is the Lakers 2000 three-peat. Shaq was the best player in basketball then and one could possibly argue that Kobe was a top 5 player maybe in the last year of that three peat, but their third best player was no where near as good a player as Bosh. Of course, LeBron-Wade-Bosh does not guarantee a championship, especially since the rest of the team would likely be spare parts (unlike those Lakers teams,) but that trio is certainly a championship caliber team. (Bosh could be replaced with Stoudemire with similar affect.)
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the three of them played together for 10 years and won seven championships together. (1) If it's in Miami, Wade is already the hero that brought them a championship and will be the hero that brought LeBron to Miami. (2) Wade will probably have one extra championship at the end of their respective careers. (3) It is very possible because of LeBron's unselfish play that Wade is the high scorer on the team at least some, if not most, of the 10 year time span, (4) during the end of games, it is very plausible that Wade will be the guy who takes many, if not most, of the last minute clutch shots. (5) Wade is the elder statesman with championship experience, while LeBron would be an added piece to the puzzle. All of these are arguments that would make it possible for Wade supporters, LeBron haters and to a much lesser extent, neutral fans to claim that Wade was the better player on the team and hence, LeBron was a super-charged Scottie Pippen to Wade's Jordan. I probably wouldn't agree with that, but does LeBron want even his best case scenario to be thus marred? If I had LeBron's talent, I wouldn't.
If I were LeBron, I would want to play alongside Carmelo Anthony, or Melo, as he is known because while Wade is better, and even Chris Paul is probably better, Melo complements LeBron's skill set better. Melo is a guy who, like Wade, could relieve some of the pressure off LeBron by driving and creating his own offense. But, he could also hit outside shots, which Wade is not very good at, so they could not leave him alone... which would mean that the floor would be spaced for LeBron's drives (if LeBron and Wade were on the same team, opposing teams should expend most of their energy guarding the basket and leave LeBron and Wade to shoot relatively uncontested outside jump shots.) James, Melo and Bosh might not be as talented as the Wade combo, but it might work better. So, if I were James, I would watch to see if any of the teams traded for Melo.
But, of the current teams as they now stand, Chicago is the best basketball situation, where he has a solid chance to win a championship without being overshadowed by another player. Wade's interest in Chicago has complicated the Chicago situation because Derrick Rose, Wade and LeBron all play the same way and all require the ball to drive. Further, I am not sure LeBron wants Chicago enough to screw over his friend Wade's chance to play near his children. Thus, if I were LeBron, the other situation I would consider (barring trades) is signing in New Jersey, provided they can woo Bosh or Stoudemire as well. Harris drives, Lee is an athletic shooter and Lopez is a center who has solid defense and a strong offense. Those are decent complementary players provided they have LeBron and another star to propel all of them to another level.
If the Knicks sign Stoudemire or Bosh and trade for Melo or Chris Paul, they would enter the conversation as well, but currently the Knicks do not have much to work with, other than Lee who would probably be the subject of a trade if he doesn't leave in free agency and Gallinari, who is very young and may or may not turn out to be a quality player (and also may be the subject of a trade.) As constructed, Cleveland is better than that.
But, legacy is not all about basketball. LeBron has an affinity for Cleveland. They also have been trying (poorly) to give him complementary players, but have been sparing no expense in their misguided efforts. They finally got rid of their limited coach and hired the best coach available who is also the best coach of this group of LeBron-eligible teams (aside from Riley, who is rumored to take over the coaching job in Miami if LeBron comes to town.) Cleveland may hate him if he leaves. He may hate himself if he leaves. He might rather be Dirk Nowitzki, a great player who elevates his team to championship caliber level rather than Pau Gasol, a great player whose legacy is failure on one team followed by success on another. Not to mention, Cleveland could pay more, as discussed above. AND... if he can take Cleveland and turn this bunch of scraps into champions, which is not likely but not impossible, then he would immediately belong among the greats of all time... even if he just won 1 or 2 titles.
So, honestly, if I were LeBron in the current situation, I would stay in Cleveland or go to Chicago. Similarly, Wade is trapped by loyalty to his team and a family situation in Chicago. That sounds like a much tougher situation, even though the pressure on him is not nearly as great (because he is not regarded as a basketball city savior like LeBron AND he already has a championship.) If I were Bosh, I would follow LeBron unless he stays in Cleveland, then I would follow Wade, unless neither is possible, in which case... I guess I would entertain the Houston idea, favored by some analysts, which relies on Yao and Bosh crowding the lane or Bosh to replace Ming's chronic injury issues. Stoudemire is a little more complicated than Bosh because, if I were him, I would follow LeBron or Wade... whoever Bosh does not follow. But, Stoudemire has always craved first billing after spending his entire career overshadowed by Nash. So, Stat apparently wants to sign with the Knicks and then recruit quality teammates in an effort to demonstrate leadership (e.g. Melo and Tony Parker to New York to play alongside him.) But, a guy who plays little defense like Stoudemire is not an ideal candidate for team leadership.
But, back to LeBron... before the end of the season, I thought he would stay with Cleveland. I actually thought if he won a championship, he would have a clear conscience to leave after bringing a long-awaited championship to Cleveland. If he lost in the finals, he would have motivation to stay at least another year or two to accept a conquerable challenge... but the way the Cavs lost made me think he had to leave, for basketball reasons. He had to leave because the other players on the team were bad. Mo Williams did virtually nothing on offense and made Rajon Rondo, a good player, look like a wizard with Mo's donut defense. Jamison, similarly shrunk from the moment and Shaq showed his age. In short, if James wants a title with this team, he would have to do it himself. I was under the naive view that LeBron was so good that he could do it himself, but he can't and it will take me another year to forget that fact again. So, I thought LeBron was out of the Cleve... but now, having seen how torn he is, and the complexities of the Chicago situation, which I would have otherwise considered Plan A, Cleveland does not seem so bad... or more accurately, leaving Cleveland seems kinda wrong.
What about the other guys? Boozer might end up in Miami or on 1 of these LeBron suitors, but he's not that big enough of a difference maker to make a difference. David Lee is in the same boat except he is even worse on defense. Ray Allen, JJ Reddick or some other shooter are powerful additions that could spread the floor for LeBron, Wade or Rose, possibly in a trade for a quality player like Deng.
Now, a few words on the greatest players of all time. The way I have always judged the greatest players of all time, knowing what you know about a player's skill level, effort level, longevity and ability to lead championships, contribute to championships, which player(s) would you choose first. (It's not just championships, as I'd much rather have Nash's career than Kerr's career on my team, but championships factor in because I'd rather have Isaiah Thomas than John Stockton, though not by much.) I think it's foolhardy to choose anyone but Jordan first. Then, there is probably some combination of Magic Johnson, Abdul Jabbar, Bird, Chamberlain and Russell in the next tier of players. Then, there is another tier of players with Olajuwon, Duncan, Robertson, Oneal, West and now Kobe. I have previously argued that Kobe doesn't belong in the same category with Jordan, but if he keeps winning, he may belong in the same category with Magic. He had a good finals series, despite having poor fourth quarters and a sub-par Game 7, but his team picked up the slack and he won his 5th championship and 2nd Finals MVP. But, to his defense, Boston has an excellent defense. If he wins 1 more finals MVPs with another championship or 2, his case against Magic increases, though he wouldn't match him unless his peak extends several years longer and/or he continues winning championships. So, Kobe is about the 10th best player in basketball history... even now, but I don't imagine him jumping much even if he wins another championship because as great as he is, his next championship would only be his 3rd as the best player on his team.
(Let's say Kobe and Shaq retire now with Kobe having an extra championship ring and an equal number of MVP trophies. Trying to take their careers independently, Kobe was a top 5 player for about 8-10 years, probably for about 2 of those years between Duncan and LeBron, he was the best player in basketball. Pair him with a very good cast and he could win you many championships (paired with a not good cast and he could miss the playoffs.) Shaq had 3 years when he was utterly dominant and paired with a good cast, he could win championships. He also had about 7 other years when he was a top 5 player. If I want any championships, I certainly pick Shaq... and if I want multiple championships, I certainly pick Shaq. But, assuming that the life span of my team, the quality of my team will vacillate, if I have a very good team for many of those years, Kobe could be the best player on that team that wins many championships. So, this is where Kobe's potential longevity might give Kobe the edge in the end over Shaq. If he has 2 more years as a top 5 player and than 3-4 more years as a very good player, then I could legitimately see a team building around Kobe's extended greatness over Shaq's fleeting dominance. It would probably take more than 1 additional championship to vault him over Shaq though, in my mind. This is particularly true because of Shaq's dominance in some finals series, while Kobe has yet to demonstrate such dominance. Either way, this championship put Kobe into (or perhaps just below) the top 10 greatest players ever, but 1 more probably won't make a huge dent, though 2 more... just might.)
What of LeBron? If LeBron retires now, he would not have a championship, but he would have been the best player in basketball for 2-3 years now and a great player for 4 other years, so he's already more than a regular hall of famer. Many more years of this without a championship and he keeps jumping to the top of the heap... but, all of the top 10 players I mentioned won at least one championship. Similarly, if LeBron won a single championship, particularly with a sub-par team, I think he jumps onto or adds to that list of top 10 players. The problem is that a player of LeBron's skill-level is not aiming to match the lower end of this list, he should end his career near the top of list. Some have suggested that he plays with Wade for a few years, tries to accumulate championships and then return to Cleveland to try to rebuild. It's not ridiculous, but if he wants to stay in Cleveland, he should do so and if he is concerned about winning, he could find a team with enough parts to win. But at age 25, I am not sure he should enter panic mode and lower his expectations to being Scottie Pippen 2.0 just yet. But, he's a great player and I'm not worried about him wherever he ends up.
On another note, congratulations to all the teams I was rooting for in the World Cup. You all failed me, starting with the United States, then Argentina, Argentina's Messi, Ghana, Brazil, etc... I guess, I'm now rooting for whoever emerges from Uruguay-Holland match, though reluctantly and begrudgingly.
Congratulations to Nadal for getting his 8th Grand Slam title. I have the same qualm with him as I do with Federer, he won his championships in an era of limited competition. The Connors-Borg-McEnroe era leaked into the Becker-Edberg-Lendl era. That was followed by the Sampras-Agassi era, except that Becker, Edberg and Lendl were still around and had to be overcome by their younger counterparts. Then, there were people like Courier who came along and played with dominance for awhile. By the time Federer was winning titles, Sampras was done and Agassi was... done. So, he had to beat lesser competition like Hewitt until Nadal came along. Nadal and Federer are dominant and consistent, but their strongest competition is Andy Roddick, who at best is a... Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Djokovic has not come into his own and may yet become better than a Jim Courier, but as of yet, not so much. Federer reminds me a lot of Lendl, a better version of Lendl, but I still contend that Sampras was better than that. And from what I understand, Nadal is not quite as good as Borg was, but he's young, so we'll see.
We'll see. I guess that's the theme of this blog post. I talk a lot of smack, but in the end, I barely have guesses, let alone predictions. But-I'll guess anyway. My guess: Nadal finishes with 13 grand slam titles to Federer's 17. Holland uses it's semi-home field (I'm not sure if Boers are loved, hated or irrelevant) to win it all over Spain with Germany taking 3rd. LeBron stays in Cleveland. Wade stays in Miami and brings Chris Bosh. Stoudemire goes to New York and gets Parker as a start to a NY team, but ultimately a lame off-season for them. Boozer goes to Chicago and they acquire a shooter as well. New Jersey trades for somebody to stay relevant. But, I have no inside information and a very limited understanding of the wants of these players. So, my thoughts are uneducated guesses merely to record my notions for posterity and to measure my prophetic ability. Thus, spoke Zarathustra.
Hope you enjoyed this nonsense,
ME
I hope you have been enjoying the most entertaining off-season in the history of sports (as far as I can tell) and are thanking two specific players. These two basketball superstars have indicated their willingness to leave their teams. In basketball, more than any other team sport, an individual is able to influence a team's success. Not that one person can win a championship, he can't... but one person makes an enormous impact. Two great players surrounded by several solid players are very capable of winning a championship. Three very good players surrounded by good players can win a championship. There are occasional years when a defense will be totally dominant with a competent offense allowing teams to win (like the Detroit Pistons in 2004, Duncan's 2000 trio, Olajuwon's 1st championship or the Bad Boys 2 championships.) But most of the time, teams have 2-3 great players and complementary players (Malone-Erving, Bird-McHale-Parish, Magic-Abdul Jabbar-Worthy, Jordan-Pippen, Olajuwon-Drexler, Duncan-Robinson, Shaq-Kobe, Wade-Shaq, Pierce-Garnett-Allen, Kobe-Gasol.)
It's clear there is no formula for championships, but it's also clear that having a cast of two to three great players and a solid supporting cast places a team in the best situation to win. So, if I was a general manager, I would move heaven and earth to land LeBron. A few stragglers were so disappointed by LeBron's Game 5 performance against the Celtics where it appeared he was not even trying that they are down on King James... but many great players have games like this. Kobe has had games like this in the past including one where he was tired of being criticized for shooting too much and decided to show his value by not participating in the offense, in an elimination play-off game against Phoenix a few years ago. He's human. So, is LeBron. Thus, moving heaven and earth seems like a small price to pay for such a young talent.
I'd argue that LeBron is the best player in basketball and Wade is the 2nd or third best player in basketball, but for the purposes of my discussion the exact placement is irrelevant as long as everyone is willing to concede that LeBron and Wade are 2 of the 5 best players in basketball. LeBron has 30 teams to choose from, 5 of which are in realistic contention: Cleveland, Chicago, New Jersey, Miami, New York. If all the basketball teams were exactly the same, he would certainly opt to play either in his home state of Ohio or the massive market of New York, but basketball-wise not all things are equal.
I think when a basketball player of LeBron's magnitude is considering a basketball destination, there are 3 primary concerns percolating through his mind. (1) What is best for him and the people he cares about (which is often just the player himself,) but players often consider where they can get the most money, big cities vs. suburbs, comfort level with a location, whether his family is settled, whether he likes or dislikes people in an organization, the weather... etc.? (2) where can he win the most championships, which relates to players, owners and coaching and (3) where can he best serve his legacy, whether he is beloved by his fans or hated by his fans and whether he is appreciated as a leader of a team and perhaps most importantly whether LeBron who has the talent to be regarded as a top 5 player of all time is regarded as such? (For example, if LeBron plays the rest of his career on Cleveland and never gets help and never wins a championship, and would go down in history as the best player to never win a championship and as merely a super-charged Dominique Wilkins. If he wins on a team with Wade and for some reason Wade is considered better historically, which is not likely but plausible, then he would go down as a super-charged Scottie Pippen. Neither of those scenarios would give his legacy the full appreciation of his natural ability, so optimally, he would win championships on a team with one or more other stars, which would make him more like Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson... as Magic played many of his years with Kareem Abdul Jabbar slightly past his dominant prime.)
Okay, let's start with money... because when anyone considers a job offer, that is usually at the top of the wish-list. Because of the collective bargaining agreement between the league owners and the players union, Cleveland can provide him with the highest salary, but not by as much as you think. There is an estimate that LeBron can be paid roughly $30 million more by Cleveland than any other team, but that is not accurate. There are two aspects to Cleveland's advantage (a) Cleveland can pay him a higher year to year percentage increase in salary. Over 5 years, this amounts to roughly $5 million. (b) Cleveland can sign him for an extra year, and if he is earning the maximum increase every year, than that last year would amount to something akin to $25 million.
The caveat to part (b) is that LeBron is young enough that he is likely to continue playing 5 years from now and he is good enough that he is likely to receive the maximum at that time under whatever contract he signs then... so he would be likely earn over $20 million that year anyway. Thus, the only major advantage of the $25 million is that it's guaranteed money, even though he is likely to earn most of that money anyway. The caveats to part (a) are that his salary increases in his next contract will use his current contract as a base and the year-to-year percentage increase will start from there, so if he leaves Cleveland, he will make less money in subsequent contracts. Additionally, the next collective bargaining agreement is likely to be harsher on player's salaries, so every year he has with this contract is a boon as opposed to his next contract. Basically, if he plays less than or equal to 5 years, then by signing with Cleveland he earned an extra $30 million, but if he plays more than 5 years at a high level, it's more likely that by signing with Cleveland now, he earns an extra $10-15 million over the duration of his career because his year-to-year salary increases would be larger if he signs with Cleveland now. I think the strategy of asking the best player in basketball to take less money than the maximum he can be paid shows hubris on the part of the Knicks or any organization that asked this on behalf of LeBron. People do not tend to give up free money. If he is willing to forego some of a max salary, like Tim Duncan did, that's considerate of him, but money is money whether it is his 2nd million or his 391st million. That extra million could go towards a charity of his choosing or a slightly nicer house or among the uber wealthy, each million is capable of earning many more millions. So, LeBron may choose to earn less than the max, but for an organization trying to earn billions of dollars off of him, to attempt to shame him into taking less than the maximum allotted salary is at best hypocritical.
But basketball players make a substantial portion of their income from endorsements, particularly a player as entertaining and charismatic as LeBron. According to Forbes magazine, if he came to New York, he would make a substantial amount more than he would if he went to any other location. However, the highest earning basketball players are the ones that the NBA endorses all year round, are superstars that win championships (and are supremely entertaining.) Michael Jordan was in the 3rd biggest market, but he earned the most money... even more than anyone from New York or Los Angeles because titles (and pizazz) garner attention. Being the superstar on a championship team is more valuable than being a superstar on a flailing failing New York Knicks. The Nets offer a counter-point that playing for a man who has international credentials would earn him more international money has some validity, but championships=international money, so championships come over expected endorsement money.
So, where does LeBron have the best opportunity to win championships? I would guess his best opportunity to win championships would be to play with Wade+Bosh and a collection of veterans and rookies who would want to play for a team with that core. The only recent comparison to a team like that is the Lakers 2000 three-peat. Shaq was the best player in basketball then and one could possibly argue that Kobe was a top 5 player maybe in the last year of that three peat, but their third best player was no where near as good a player as Bosh. Of course, LeBron-Wade-Bosh does not guarantee a championship, especially since the rest of the team would likely be spare parts (unlike those Lakers teams,) but that trio is certainly a championship caliber team. (Bosh could be replaced with Stoudemire with similar affect.)
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the three of them played together for 10 years and won seven championships together. (1) If it's in Miami, Wade is already the hero that brought them a championship and will be the hero that brought LeBron to Miami. (2) Wade will probably have one extra championship at the end of their respective careers. (3) It is very possible because of LeBron's unselfish play that Wade is the high scorer on the team at least some, if not most, of the 10 year time span, (4) during the end of games, it is very plausible that Wade will be the guy who takes many, if not most, of the last minute clutch shots. (5) Wade is the elder statesman with championship experience, while LeBron would be an added piece to the puzzle. All of these are arguments that would make it possible for Wade supporters, LeBron haters and to a much lesser extent, neutral fans to claim that Wade was the better player on the team and hence, LeBron was a super-charged Scottie Pippen to Wade's Jordan. I probably wouldn't agree with that, but does LeBron want even his best case scenario to be thus marred? If I had LeBron's talent, I wouldn't.
If I were LeBron, I would want to play alongside Carmelo Anthony, or Melo, as he is known because while Wade is better, and even Chris Paul is probably better, Melo complements LeBron's skill set better. Melo is a guy who, like Wade, could relieve some of the pressure off LeBron by driving and creating his own offense. But, he could also hit outside shots, which Wade is not very good at, so they could not leave him alone... which would mean that the floor would be spaced for LeBron's drives (if LeBron and Wade were on the same team, opposing teams should expend most of their energy guarding the basket and leave LeBron and Wade to shoot relatively uncontested outside jump shots.) James, Melo and Bosh might not be as talented as the Wade combo, but it might work better. So, if I were James, I would watch to see if any of the teams traded for Melo.
But, of the current teams as they now stand, Chicago is the best basketball situation, where he has a solid chance to win a championship without being overshadowed by another player. Wade's interest in Chicago has complicated the Chicago situation because Derrick Rose, Wade and LeBron all play the same way and all require the ball to drive. Further, I am not sure LeBron wants Chicago enough to screw over his friend Wade's chance to play near his children. Thus, if I were LeBron, the other situation I would consider (barring trades) is signing in New Jersey, provided they can woo Bosh or Stoudemire as well. Harris drives, Lee is an athletic shooter and Lopez is a center who has solid defense and a strong offense. Those are decent complementary players provided they have LeBron and another star to propel all of them to another level.
If the Knicks sign Stoudemire or Bosh and trade for Melo or Chris Paul, they would enter the conversation as well, but currently the Knicks do not have much to work with, other than Lee who would probably be the subject of a trade if he doesn't leave in free agency and Gallinari, who is very young and may or may not turn out to be a quality player (and also may be the subject of a trade.) As constructed, Cleveland is better than that.
But, legacy is not all about basketball. LeBron has an affinity for Cleveland. They also have been trying (poorly) to give him complementary players, but have been sparing no expense in their misguided efforts. They finally got rid of their limited coach and hired the best coach available who is also the best coach of this group of LeBron-eligible teams (aside from Riley, who is rumored to take over the coaching job in Miami if LeBron comes to town.) Cleveland may hate him if he leaves. He may hate himself if he leaves. He might rather be Dirk Nowitzki, a great player who elevates his team to championship caliber level rather than Pau Gasol, a great player whose legacy is failure on one team followed by success on another. Not to mention, Cleveland could pay more, as discussed above. AND... if he can take Cleveland and turn this bunch of scraps into champions, which is not likely but not impossible, then he would immediately belong among the greats of all time... even if he just won 1 or 2 titles.
So, honestly, if I were LeBron in the current situation, I would stay in Cleveland or go to Chicago. Similarly, Wade is trapped by loyalty to his team and a family situation in Chicago. That sounds like a much tougher situation, even though the pressure on him is not nearly as great (because he is not regarded as a basketball city savior like LeBron AND he already has a championship.) If I were Bosh, I would follow LeBron unless he stays in Cleveland, then I would follow Wade, unless neither is possible, in which case... I guess I would entertain the Houston idea, favored by some analysts, which relies on Yao and Bosh crowding the lane or Bosh to replace Ming's chronic injury issues. Stoudemire is a little more complicated than Bosh because, if I were him, I would follow LeBron or Wade... whoever Bosh does not follow. But, Stoudemire has always craved first billing after spending his entire career overshadowed by Nash. So, Stat apparently wants to sign with the Knicks and then recruit quality teammates in an effort to demonstrate leadership (e.g. Melo and Tony Parker to New York to play alongside him.) But, a guy who plays little defense like Stoudemire is not an ideal candidate for team leadership.
But, back to LeBron... before the end of the season, I thought he would stay with Cleveland. I actually thought if he won a championship, he would have a clear conscience to leave after bringing a long-awaited championship to Cleveland. If he lost in the finals, he would have motivation to stay at least another year or two to accept a conquerable challenge... but the way the Cavs lost made me think he had to leave, for basketball reasons. He had to leave because the other players on the team were bad. Mo Williams did virtually nothing on offense and made Rajon Rondo, a good player, look like a wizard with Mo's donut defense. Jamison, similarly shrunk from the moment and Shaq showed his age. In short, if James wants a title with this team, he would have to do it himself. I was under the naive view that LeBron was so good that he could do it himself, but he can't and it will take me another year to forget that fact again. So, I thought LeBron was out of the Cleve... but now, having seen how torn he is, and the complexities of the Chicago situation, which I would have otherwise considered Plan A, Cleveland does not seem so bad... or more accurately, leaving Cleveland seems kinda wrong.
What about the other guys? Boozer might end up in Miami or on 1 of these LeBron suitors, but he's not that big enough of a difference maker to make a difference. David Lee is in the same boat except he is even worse on defense. Ray Allen, JJ Reddick or some other shooter are powerful additions that could spread the floor for LeBron, Wade or Rose, possibly in a trade for a quality player like Deng.
Now, a few words on the greatest players of all time. The way I have always judged the greatest players of all time, knowing what you know about a player's skill level, effort level, longevity and ability to lead championships, contribute to championships, which player(s) would you choose first. (It's not just championships, as I'd much rather have Nash's career than Kerr's career on my team, but championships factor in because I'd rather have Isaiah Thomas than John Stockton, though not by much.) I think it's foolhardy to choose anyone but Jordan first. Then, there is probably some combination of Magic Johnson, Abdul Jabbar, Bird, Chamberlain and Russell in the next tier of players. Then, there is another tier of players with Olajuwon, Duncan, Robertson, Oneal, West and now Kobe. I have previously argued that Kobe doesn't belong in the same category with Jordan, but if he keeps winning, he may belong in the same category with Magic. He had a good finals series, despite having poor fourth quarters and a sub-par Game 7, but his team picked up the slack and he won his 5th championship and 2nd Finals MVP. But, to his defense, Boston has an excellent defense. If he wins 1 more finals MVPs with another championship or 2, his case against Magic increases, though he wouldn't match him unless his peak extends several years longer and/or he continues winning championships. So, Kobe is about the 10th best player in basketball history... even now, but I don't imagine him jumping much even if he wins another championship because as great as he is, his next championship would only be his 3rd as the best player on his team.
(Let's say Kobe and Shaq retire now with Kobe having an extra championship ring and an equal number of MVP trophies. Trying to take their careers independently, Kobe was a top 5 player for about 8-10 years, probably for about 2 of those years between Duncan and LeBron, he was the best player in basketball. Pair him with a very good cast and he could win you many championships (paired with a not good cast and he could miss the playoffs.) Shaq had 3 years when he was utterly dominant and paired with a good cast, he could win championships. He also had about 7 other years when he was a top 5 player. If I want any championships, I certainly pick Shaq... and if I want multiple championships, I certainly pick Shaq. But, assuming that the life span of my team, the quality of my team will vacillate, if I have a very good team for many of those years, Kobe could be the best player on that team that wins many championships. So, this is where Kobe's potential longevity might give Kobe the edge in the end over Shaq. If he has 2 more years as a top 5 player and than 3-4 more years as a very good player, then I could legitimately see a team building around Kobe's extended greatness over Shaq's fleeting dominance. It would probably take more than 1 additional championship to vault him over Shaq though, in my mind. This is particularly true because of Shaq's dominance in some finals series, while Kobe has yet to demonstrate such dominance. Either way, this championship put Kobe into (or perhaps just below) the top 10 greatest players ever, but 1 more probably won't make a huge dent, though 2 more... just might.)
What of LeBron? If LeBron retires now, he would not have a championship, but he would have been the best player in basketball for 2-3 years now and a great player for 4 other years, so he's already more than a regular hall of famer. Many more years of this without a championship and he keeps jumping to the top of the heap... but, all of the top 10 players I mentioned won at least one championship. Similarly, if LeBron won a single championship, particularly with a sub-par team, I think he jumps onto or adds to that list of top 10 players. The problem is that a player of LeBron's skill-level is not aiming to match the lower end of this list, he should end his career near the top of list. Some have suggested that he plays with Wade for a few years, tries to accumulate championships and then return to Cleveland to try to rebuild. It's not ridiculous, but if he wants to stay in Cleveland, he should do so and if he is concerned about winning, he could find a team with enough parts to win. But at age 25, I am not sure he should enter panic mode and lower his expectations to being Scottie Pippen 2.0 just yet. But, he's a great player and I'm not worried about him wherever he ends up.
On another note, congratulations to all the teams I was rooting for in the World Cup. You all failed me, starting with the United States, then Argentina, Argentina's Messi, Ghana, Brazil, etc... I guess, I'm now rooting for whoever emerges from Uruguay-Holland match, though reluctantly and begrudgingly.
Congratulations to Nadal for getting his 8th Grand Slam title. I have the same qualm with him as I do with Federer, he won his championships in an era of limited competition. The Connors-Borg-McEnroe era leaked into the Becker-Edberg-Lendl era. That was followed by the Sampras-Agassi era, except that Becker, Edberg and Lendl were still around and had to be overcome by their younger counterparts. Then, there were people like Courier who came along and played with dominance for awhile. By the time Federer was winning titles, Sampras was done and Agassi was... done. So, he had to beat lesser competition like Hewitt until Nadal came along. Nadal and Federer are dominant and consistent, but their strongest competition is Andy Roddick, who at best is a... Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Djokovic has not come into his own and may yet become better than a Jim Courier, but as of yet, not so much. Federer reminds me a lot of Lendl, a better version of Lendl, but I still contend that Sampras was better than that. And from what I understand, Nadal is not quite as good as Borg was, but he's young, so we'll see.
We'll see. I guess that's the theme of this blog post. I talk a lot of smack, but in the end, I barely have guesses, let alone predictions. But-I'll guess anyway. My guess: Nadal finishes with 13 grand slam titles to Federer's 17. Holland uses it's semi-home field (I'm not sure if Boers are loved, hated or irrelevant) to win it all over Spain with Germany taking 3rd. LeBron stays in Cleveland. Wade stays in Miami and brings Chris Bosh. Stoudemire goes to New York and gets Parker as a start to a NY team, but ultimately a lame off-season for them. Boozer goes to Chicago and they acquire a shooter as well. New Jersey trades for somebody to stay relevant. But, I have no inside information and a very limited understanding of the wants of these players. So, my thoughts are uneducated guesses merely to record my notions for posterity and to measure my prophetic ability. Thus, spoke Zarathustra.
Hope you enjoyed this nonsense,
ME
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Image Everything
About a year ago, I bought my first camera. It was a canon. About 2 months ago, I lost that camera and bought a new camera. It was a canon. I asked the people at the counter at the Best Buy for which product was best, but really, I watch a tremendous amount of TV and I am an advertisers dream. I buy products I've heard of. I buy products I remember - I'd heard of kodak and I know some other companies that make cameras, but don't specialize in them, so I opted for the one whose slogan I remembered from 10 years ago.
Image is everything.
About 4 months ago, I quoted the same slogan in my best man toast at my brother's wedding. Image is everything. As far as I can tell, it worked with my theme, it worked for my brother and it connected with the audience.
Why did I remember this? Because as far as I can tell, Agassi did to Canon what Jordan did to Nike. He took a solid company and by virtue of one celebrity's image transformed it into a dominant company in the industry. He was that powerful a sports figure, even though he only played tennis, not one of the big 4 sports in the United States and not even soccer. Frankly, tennis does not have close to the financial impact that golf does, as suggested by the yearly salaries of Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. And it does not have the same mass appeal that driving fast does in the United States or abroad. He played tennis.
We all know from his recent retirement that Agassi has done a lot of good important philanthropic work over the past 15 years. We all know that he was married to Brooke Shields and after they got divorced he wed tennis overlord Steffie Graff. We all know that he started off as a "rebel" with incredible tennis skill and then went through a slump, and just when the last of his supporters was beginning to think his career had winded down, he transformed into the hardest working gritty tennis player around and made a legendary resurgence. We all know that he had a storied rivalry with fellow U.S. tennis superstar and his seeming opposite Pete Sampras. But, what we did not know could fill a frighteningly large book.
So, he wrote it. People talk about the drugs and the hair and the depression and the lifts and the tennis-hatred, but they are missing the point... the drugs. Okay, so they are not missing the point. But, to be fair, it kind of all makes sense- mostly. Here's a guy who hates tennis, so he defies it. He keeps hating tennis, so he turns to drugs. He hates the attention, but he coddles it by marrying a star. He is incredibly insecure, so he embraces youth conventions. It does not make total sense, but it's not far-fetched either.
Do I believe it? Absolutely. It's pretty self-incriminating and self-deprecating without being funny at all. The better question is why did he tell it and the better question is what reaction did he expect?
Let's start with the better question. Does Agassi need the money? It's possible that years of living like a rock star on an athlete's salary (which was not a salary and was sizeable plus endorsements) for so many years has left him without funds to amply support his growing family. But, Graff made some loot too. Is it possible that his charitable works, in particular his Vegas school project has tapped him dry? Doubtful, but possible. Is it possible that it is an elaborate ploy to make more money, with which he can contribute to his charities? Yes. But, there had to be an easier way.
So, while the money probably contributed to his decision, the fact that he could have made the same amount of money from going around the country giving speeches, it was probably not the prime mover. There are a myriad of possibilities, but in my head, I have narrowed down my search into three main categories: inspiration, catharsis and vanity.
I'd like to rule out inspiration because while he may have inspired drug addicts, he simultaneously may have lost a tremendous amount of fans who are disillusioned by the drug use. He is no longer the story about what you can achieve if you work hard, his is the story about what you can achieve if you don't care. And even though I will discuss that Agassi had drastically underestimated the impact of his revelations, he is not stupid and he must have understood that the narrative would change. He must have understood that not only would his name be associated with tennis legend, Gen X hero, comeback story, celebrity prince, but he would also be crystal meth user. Parents don't tell your kids the tale of Andre Agassi, it's no Grimm's Fairy Tale, cause this is real and scary. So, while the thought of inspiring young drug addicts probably entered his head, he probably did not write this book primarily for them.
I'd like to rule out catharsis too because he basically made his death bed confessions in the prime of his life while he is seemingly happily married and enjoying his family and his place in the world, but I can't do that. I would have to know more about him or at least read the book to figure out how much of what he did was for his own spiritual gratification. They say the truth shall set you free. And while, sometimes that is more than true, sometimes the truth can get you thrown in jail (by the way, I am not taking a position about whether or not there is a criminal culpability here, despite my legal knowledge because I do not know where he committed these actions and while the statute of limitations surely passed, there are potential tolling based on extra-jurisdictional exceptions (i.e. when you are outside of a state, the clock on the statute of limitations may temporarily stop.) And, I'm not going to make this into a political policy decision about whether we should lighten the criminality of drug-use, which can alternately be characterized as a personal weakness, an addiction, a disease, a symptom of a disease, etc.) Moreover, the truth can imprison others. That is why when a person commits a single marital indiscretion, they are often counseled by their spouse's loved ones not to reveal their error. Agassi was cheating on us... with drugs. Maybe he shouldn't have told us. (I take no position on this issue either.) And while the truth shall set you free, ignorance is bliss.
So again, I can't really speak to how cathartic the experience was for the man, not only sharing his intimate flaws with his loved ones, but sharing it with the whole world. So, I will discount the theory not based on my understanding, but based on convenience because it does not serve my purposes.
So, that only leaves one possibility. Vanity. How can it be vain for a person to confess his insecurities about his baldness, his height, his hard-drug use when his image is at its apex and it will obviously diminish from these stories. Vanity. Agassi has a complex relationship with the media and with his celebrity. He often shuns it, but he often nurtures it. Agassi like many celebrities does not want to be hounded about his daily bowel movements, but nor does he want to be irrelevant or a relic. Ad Agassi is famously good at adapting his celebrity from his choice of partners, to his stylistic flair to his extravagant hairstyles and even to his level of effort on the tennis court. And now, Agassi has adapted.
He adapted from his youth to his adulthood with his change of hairstyle. He adapted from his immaturity to his maturity with his change of wife (no disrespect to Shields, but that marriage from my limited understanding seemed like a bit of a PR stunt). And now, he's adapting from old to new celebrity by moving from the 90's maverick to the 00's reality star. People want to see the foibles of their new celebrities and Agassi is willing be the much maligned Jon or Kate to be relevant. He is willing to be Puck to be important. He is willing to be the vilified Richard Hatch and bare it all to be the celebrity Survivor (how about those dated references). So, Agassi, who was about to settle into a relatively quiet life in Nevada made a comeback... yet again.
Well, this brings us to our second question- what did he expect? Sure, Martina Navratilova's reaction that Agassi is like Clemens is not only bizarre, but also inaccurate. Crystal meth is by my understanding, not a performance enhancing drug like steroids or speed or cocaine. Those drugs allow you to train harder, build muscle mass, or in the case of Lawrence Taylor frighten the adversary into the fetal position. From my understanding, a drug like crystal meth is more along the lines of heroin (from watching Breaking Bad,) which gives you the added ability to pass out while pissing yourself. Not so heroic now, are you Andre? But, now instead of heroism or achievement making you a celebrity, becoming a celebrity makes you a hero and the act of becoming a celebrity is the achievement. Agassi gets it. He was a hero back in the day by defying the man and still winning. Then, he became an adult hero by showing up to work every day, working hard and triumphing over the odds and over the younger crowd. Now, he is becoming the newer kind of hero because he is staying famous and he will soil his name however he has to make it so. But, I digress.
Okay, so he could not have expected people to compare him to Clemens (it's also funny that comparing an athlete to one of the greatest pitchers of all time is an insult). And though she tried to make the issue about lying, lying to a sporting body is hardly a high crime. Moreover, most people tell white lies all the time. It is more than likely that closeted athletes are even until this day lying to the general public about their sexual exploits for fear of the truth's unfortunate reprisals. So, Martina, was it because it was an official response, was it because of the nature of the lie or was it because of something I'm missing. An official response theory makes some sense because when caught we want people to fall on their swords. But, that is not what happens. In fact, in probably near half the criminal cases in the country, people begin by pleading not guilty, then if they are placed into a tight corner, they change their plea. That is not what happened here. Here, he pled not guilty, he was exonerated and then he confessed (possibly out of feeling guilty or remorse (unless it was out of gloating, but that does not seem to be the case)). While, it is not as honorable as never having committed the crime and not even as honorable as falling on his sword (which would probably have resulted in a suspension, a slap on the wrist and/or rehab/testing out of concern for Agassi's well being), it is more honorable than getting away with it (and not feeling remorse) or changing your story when you have no choice. However you feel about it, he could have handled it in a worse way, so he's not evil for his lying. As discussed above, the nature of the lie was about a drug that was harmful to himself and not particularly harmful to others (unless you consider the wider effects of drugs in our culture) and did not help him in tennis. So, I must be missing something.
But, what about Federer or Nadal or Safin? Could he have expected that there would be calls that he should give back his money and his titles? Yes. He didn't, but he should have considered a legitimate possibility. These are intensely competitive people in a field where Agassi was glorified for almost everything he did. They are trying to protect the integrity of a sport that is dogged by shocking scandals and a filthy lint-filled, puss-infected underbelly, which most casual fans remain blissfully ignorant of (including throwing games, gambling, mafia involvement to say the least.) Tennis is like the boxing of sports (that did not come out right.) Sure, they are overreacting, but it's not unexpected that some people would overreact.
What is more surprising is Agassi's rebuttal, which Katie Couric's softball questions laid bare. It's unclear whether it was Agassi's expectation or his hope, but Agassi asked for compassion. That's not how compassion works. It's not delivered upon request. If he had fallen on his sword in full remorse, there would have been a large group of people who leant out their hands. Instead, he kept stressing that it was a "recreational drug" like it's a drug you might use while playing tennis. He said, have compassion for me cause I had problems. He wanted sympathy. He wanted the world to feel sorry for him. I understand, Andre, you had a rough childhood, you worked really hard, you hated your job and you were in an unhappy marriage. We all get it. Most people have some if not all of these problems and still most people avoid crystal meth. People make mistakes and other people are more than willing to forgive those mistakes, but don't ask me for compassion. You're akin to the homeless guy that asks you for money and tries to make you feel bad that you didn't give it. It's my compassion and I get to dole it out as I please. I worked hard for this compassion.
But, the truth is, the guy was my brother's idol growing up and while I was a Michael Chang man in tennis (and preferred Pete Sampras,) my brother's adoration had a profound impact on me. I admired his life change ten years ago and I now acknowledge that his change is all the greater in that he also secretly gave up drugs to make his first comeback. And this is hard for me to say because I'm incredibly self-righteous and judgmental, (just ask anyone that knows me,) I also acknowledge that I'm incredibly flawed and make countless mistakes for which I could use forgiveness, so I am in no position to judge. Thus, while I might not give Agassi all the compassion he is looking for, I do give him some spare compassion.
After all, he is the one that brought me and my camera together. And in the last year or so, I have taken something like 3000 pictures, so that I can document my own life and my own faults. And I put my life on facebook and blogs without a thousandth of the candidness that Agassi probably did. But, to be fair, I'm heeding Agassi's immortal advice and I'm crafting my own image. So, thank you Andre Agassi and for what it's worth, I don't think they should strip you of your winnings or your titles, but I do think this has done a substantial amount to strip you of your dignity. And from what I gathered so far, this book is really another unbelievable return.
Don't call it a comeback,
The Papa Bear
Image is everything.
About 4 months ago, I quoted the same slogan in my best man toast at my brother's wedding. Image is everything. As far as I can tell, it worked with my theme, it worked for my brother and it connected with the audience.
Why did I remember this? Because as far as I can tell, Agassi did to Canon what Jordan did to Nike. He took a solid company and by virtue of one celebrity's image transformed it into a dominant company in the industry. He was that powerful a sports figure, even though he only played tennis, not one of the big 4 sports in the United States and not even soccer. Frankly, tennis does not have close to the financial impact that golf does, as suggested by the yearly salaries of Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. And it does not have the same mass appeal that driving fast does in the United States or abroad. He played tennis.
We all know from his recent retirement that Agassi has done a lot of good important philanthropic work over the past 15 years. We all know that he was married to Brooke Shields and after they got divorced he wed tennis overlord Steffie Graff. We all know that he started off as a "rebel" with incredible tennis skill and then went through a slump, and just when the last of his supporters was beginning to think his career had winded down, he transformed into the hardest working gritty tennis player around and made a legendary resurgence. We all know that he had a storied rivalry with fellow U.S. tennis superstar and his seeming opposite Pete Sampras. But, what we did not know could fill a frighteningly large book.
So, he wrote it. People talk about the drugs and the hair and the depression and the lifts and the tennis-hatred, but they are missing the point... the drugs. Okay, so they are not missing the point. But, to be fair, it kind of all makes sense- mostly. Here's a guy who hates tennis, so he defies it. He keeps hating tennis, so he turns to drugs. He hates the attention, but he coddles it by marrying a star. He is incredibly insecure, so he embraces youth conventions. It does not make total sense, but it's not far-fetched either.
Do I believe it? Absolutely. It's pretty self-incriminating and self-deprecating without being funny at all. The better question is why did he tell it and the better question is what reaction did he expect?
Let's start with the better question. Does Agassi need the money? It's possible that years of living like a rock star on an athlete's salary (which was not a salary and was sizeable plus endorsements) for so many years has left him without funds to amply support his growing family. But, Graff made some loot too. Is it possible that his charitable works, in particular his Vegas school project has tapped him dry? Doubtful, but possible. Is it possible that it is an elaborate ploy to make more money, with which he can contribute to his charities? Yes. But, there had to be an easier way.
So, while the money probably contributed to his decision, the fact that he could have made the same amount of money from going around the country giving speeches, it was probably not the prime mover. There are a myriad of possibilities, but in my head, I have narrowed down my search into three main categories: inspiration, catharsis and vanity.
I'd like to rule out inspiration because while he may have inspired drug addicts, he simultaneously may have lost a tremendous amount of fans who are disillusioned by the drug use. He is no longer the story about what you can achieve if you work hard, his is the story about what you can achieve if you don't care. And even though I will discuss that Agassi had drastically underestimated the impact of his revelations, he is not stupid and he must have understood that the narrative would change. He must have understood that not only would his name be associated with tennis legend, Gen X hero, comeback story, celebrity prince, but he would also be crystal meth user. Parents don't tell your kids the tale of Andre Agassi, it's no Grimm's Fairy Tale, cause this is real and scary. So, while the thought of inspiring young drug addicts probably entered his head, he probably did not write this book primarily for them.
I'd like to rule out catharsis too because he basically made his death bed confessions in the prime of his life while he is seemingly happily married and enjoying his family and his place in the world, but I can't do that. I would have to know more about him or at least read the book to figure out how much of what he did was for his own spiritual gratification. They say the truth shall set you free. And while, sometimes that is more than true, sometimes the truth can get you thrown in jail (by the way, I am not taking a position about whether or not there is a criminal culpability here, despite my legal knowledge because I do not know where he committed these actions and while the statute of limitations surely passed, there are potential tolling based on extra-jurisdictional exceptions (i.e. when you are outside of a state, the clock on the statute of limitations may temporarily stop.) And, I'm not going to make this into a political policy decision about whether we should lighten the criminality of drug-use, which can alternately be characterized as a personal weakness, an addiction, a disease, a symptom of a disease, etc.) Moreover, the truth can imprison others. That is why when a person commits a single marital indiscretion, they are often counseled by their spouse's loved ones not to reveal their error. Agassi was cheating on us... with drugs. Maybe he shouldn't have told us. (I take no position on this issue either.) And while the truth shall set you free, ignorance is bliss.
So again, I can't really speak to how cathartic the experience was for the man, not only sharing his intimate flaws with his loved ones, but sharing it with the whole world. So, I will discount the theory not based on my understanding, but based on convenience because it does not serve my purposes.
So, that only leaves one possibility. Vanity. How can it be vain for a person to confess his insecurities about his baldness, his height, his hard-drug use when his image is at its apex and it will obviously diminish from these stories. Vanity. Agassi has a complex relationship with the media and with his celebrity. He often shuns it, but he often nurtures it. Agassi like many celebrities does not want to be hounded about his daily bowel movements, but nor does he want to be irrelevant or a relic. Ad Agassi is famously good at adapting his celebrity from his choice of partners, to his stylistic flair to his extravagant hairstyles and even to his level of effort on the tennis court. And now, Agassi has adapted.
He adapted from his youth to his adulthood with his change of hairstyle. He adapted from his immaturity to his maturity with his change of wife (no disrespect to Shields, but that marriage from my limited understanding seemed like a bit of a PR stunt). And now, he's adapting from old to new celebrity by moving from the 90's maverick to the 00's reality star. People want to see the foibles of their new celebrities and Agassi is willing be the much maligned Jon or Kate to be relevant. He is willing to be Puck to be important. He is willing to be the vilified Richard Hatch and bare it all to be the celebrity Survivor (how about those dated references). So, Agassi, who was about to settle into a relatively quiet life in Nevada made a comeback... yet again.
Well, this brings us to our second question- what did he expect? Sure, Martina Navratilova's reaction that Agassi is like Clemens is not only bizarre, but also inaccurate. Crystal meth is by my understanding, not a performance enhancing drug like steroids or speed or cocaine. Those drugs allow you to train harder, build muscle mass, or in the case of Lawrence Taylor frighten the adversary into the fetal position. From my understanding, a drug like crystal meth is more along the lines of heroin (from watching Breaking Bad,) which gives you the added ability to pass out while pissing yourself. Not so heroic now, are you Andre? But, now instead of heroism or achievement making you a celebrity, becoming a celebrity makes you a hero and the act of becoming a celebrity is the achievement. Agassi gets it. He was a hero back in the day by defying the man and still winning. Then, he became an adult hero by showing up to work every day, working hard and triumphing over the odds and over the younger crowd. Now, he is becoming the newer kind of hero because he is staying famous and he will soil his name however he has to make it so. But, I digress.
Okay, so he could not have expected people to compare him to Clemens (it's also funny that comparing an athlete to one of the greatest pitchers of all time is an insult). And though she tried to make the issue about lying, lying to a sporting body is hardly a high crime. Moreover, most people tell white lies all the time. It is more than likely that closeted athletes are even until this day lying to the general public about their sexual exploits for fear of the truth's unfortunate reprisals. So, Martina, was it because it was an official response, was it because of the nature of the lie or was it because of something I'm missing. An official response theory makes some sense because when caught we want people to fall on their swords. But, that is not what happens. In fact, in probably near half the criminal cases in the country, people begin by pleading not guilty, then if they are placed into a tight corner, they change their plea. That is not what happened here. Here, he pled not guilty, he was exonerated and then he confessed (possibly out of feeling guilty or remorse (unless it was out of gloating, but that does not seem to be the case)). While, it is not as honorable as never having committed the crime and not even as honorable as falling on his sword (which would probably have resulted in a suspension, a slap on the wrist and/or rehab/testing out of concern for Agassi's well being), it is more honorable than getting away with it (and not feeling remorse) or changing your story when you have no choice. However you feel about it, he could have handled it in a worse way, so he's not evil for his lying. As discussed above, the nature of the lie was about a drug that was harmful to himself and not particularly harmful to others (unless you consider the wider effects of drugs in our culture) and did not help him in tennis. So, I must be missing something.
But, what about Federer or Nadal or Safin? Could he have expected that there would be calls that he should give back his money and his titles? Yes. He didn't, but he should have considered a legitimate possibility. These are intensely competitive people in a field where Agassi was glorified for almost everything he did. They are trying to protect the integrity of a sport that is dogged by shocking scandals and a filthy lint-filled, puss-infected underbelly, which most casual fans remain blissfully ignorant of (including throwing games, gambling, mafia involvement to say the least.) Tennis is like the boxing of sports (that did not come out right.) Sure, they are overreacting, but it's not unexpected that some people would overreact.
What is more surprising is Agassi's rebuttal, which Katie Couric's softball questions laid bare. It's unclear whether it was Agassi's expectation or his hope, but Agassi asked for compassion. That's not how compassion works. It's not delivered upon request. If he had fallen on his sword in full remorse, there would have been a large group of people who leant out their hands. Instead, he kept stressing that it was a "recreational drug" like it's a drug you might use while playing tennis. He said, have compassion for me cause I had problems. He wanted sympathy. He wanted the world to feel sorry for him. I understand, Andre, you had a rough childhood, you worked really hard, you hated your job and you were in an unhappy marriage. We all get it. Most people have some if not all of these problems and still most people avoid crystal meth. People make mistakes and other people are more than willing to forgive those mistakes, but don't ask me for compassion. You're akin to the homeless guy that asks you for money and tries to make you feel bad that you didn't give it. It's my compassion and I get to dole it out as I please. I worked hard for this compassion.
But, the truth is, the guy was my brother's idol growing up and while I was a Michael Chang man in tennis (and preferred Pete Sampras,) my brother's adoration had a profound impact on me. I admired his life change ten years ago and I now acknowledge that his change is all the greater in that he also secretly gave up drugs to make his first comeback. And this is hard for me to say because I'm incredibly self-righteous and judgmental, (just ask anyone that knows me,) I also acknowledge that I'm incredibly flawed and make countless mistakes for which I could use forgiveness, so I am in no position to judge. Thus, while I might not give Agassi all the compassion he is looking for, I do give him some spare compassion.
After all, he is the one that brought me and my camera together. And in the last year or so, I have taken something like 3000 pictures, so that I can document my own life and my own faults. And I put my life on facebook and blogs without a thousandth of the candidness that Agassi probably did. But, to be fair, I'm heeding Agassi's immortal advice and I'm crafting my own image. So, thank you Andre Agassi and for what it's worth, I don't think they should strip you of your winnings or your titles, but I do think this has done a substantial amount to strip you of your dignity. And from what I gathered so far, this book is really another unbelievable return.
Don't call it a comeback,
The Papa Bear
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
