MJ's Actions are Just Like Mike

I found this article by Jason Whitlock on a RealGM forum and posted a response there.  Here is a modified version of that response:  
  


I'm not as knowledgable about business as some here, but speaking from the perspective of somebody in a line of work related to Mr. Whitlock- I didn't like that article. It was way too easy to write, and was ironic itself considering the claims at the top of his page: that he musters the courage to say things most won't.

Michael Jordan is simply being the best owner he can be.  

Most journalists don't make basketball owners- white or black, MJ or non-MJ- out to be slave owners. Not because it's too hard, but because it's such a simplistic view of the relationship between owners and players. It's wrong. It's dumb. 


I'm not saying playing the race card or making a controversial analogy is never warranted, but it wasn't in this scenario.

Some have been making a point about the irony of MJ's position in this dispute after having a different position a decade prior. I, more than most, get the irony. I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical, however. 

Jordan going from player- best player in the league- to owner of a middling basketball team is a stark crossover. But let's not go overboard here: it's not slave becoming slave owner. It's more like union electrical engineer becoming the head of Verizon's wireless communications wing. I may not have been creative with that comparison, but it's better than Whitlock's, and more apt to boot. 


Jordan's a different person now; nobody is who they were ten years before. People can be many things; father, son, lawyer, gardening addict, procrastinator, and dabbler in painting can describe one person. 


Michael Jordan doesn't play basketball now. He wasn't an owner when he made the comments about Abe Pollin, and lent those words out to help the people in his position, including himself, get the best deal possible. You can at least credit him with giving consistent effort for whichever side he's on. 

If one wants to critique Michael Jordan as being selfish and greedy, there are better ways to do it. Is he selfish and greedy? Probably. That's a weakness to have as a player. That's probably a strength to have as an owner and a business man. I can't fault him for trying to extract the best deal possible for himself. 

That's why I can't fault him for doing what he's doing to the players either. He doesn't owe them a damn thing, and they don't owe him a damn thing. Not in the arena of business. Basketball arena, yeah. Business arena, no. Why would they owe each other anything? 

If players feel they are entitled to have MJ in their corner here, well, it's their own fault for confusing their basketball idol with a selfless person and/or a possibly bad businessman, and being pulled in by the fantastic marketing of the Jordan brand. Go ahead, don't wear Jordans anymore. Congratulations, you finally realize you didn't need to wear them in the first place. 

The NBA is a sports league, which means it's an entertainment league, which means it's a business, the same as in Rome 2000 years ago. If you're going to enter the industry, keep your head on a swivel before it ends up on a spike. 

I do wish that in general, Michael Jordan was more like Bill Russell in a sense that he was more socially conscious. But he doesn't need to be. He chose the right business for himself. As it did for all those ringless 90's stars, it sucks for the players today that MJ is who he is, if for different reasons.  

The Real Reason Behind the Polarization of Derrick Rose

Kobe Bryant has some competition.  He has a rival in a Chicago Bulls uniform, a Bull who plays guard.  Kobe's flashy, young competitor played against him in the All-Star game for the Eastern Conference.  The youngin' headlines a team that Kobe's Lakers might see if they are fortunate enough to make it out of the West.  He's a flashy, athletic star who can dazzle fans like a young Kobe Bean Bryant.

Picture via http://pippenainteasy.com/files/2010/02/derrick-rose.jpg

Michael Jordan is retired from playing professional basketball, Keith Bogans just missed making the all-star team (Juusstt missed...kind of like all of his shots), and I didn't sign with Chicago last summer because I hate cold weather.  The Bull I'm talking about is Derrick Rose- a player who is right on Kobe's heels as he elevates both his game and his status among the league's most polarizing figures.   

MPPs of the League

Rose is an amazing force for Chicago.  The Eastern Conference is more top-heavy than the skin drooping off Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi's face, yet Rose has the Bulls near the top of the standings in the Eastern Conference.  While Boston and Miami sent a combined seven all-stars to Los Angeles over a week ago, Chicago sent only Rose to represent Chi-town's teams.  Analysts, media members, and fans have taken notice of this, and combined with his third-year quantum leap in terms of stats and play, Rose is being touted as a legitimate MVP candidate.  However, there are hardcore basketball minds (examples here and here and here with Mr. Berri) who find it ridiculous that Rose should be an MVP candidate this season.  As the two extremes talk, one thing is clear:  the parties can't co-exist and they can't find a middle ground with Rose.  Because the two sides can't agree, a U.S. government lock-down seems imminent.  Well, I'm sure that's part of the reason why...

Rose is now one of the most polarizing players in the league.  My quick list of MPPs:

1.)  Kobe Bryant- Kobe gets the edge due to experience and the persistent all-time comparisons that he gets.
2.)  Derrick Rose- He has a website dedicated to him getting the MVP award.  Of course he's going to be polarizing.

3.)  Kevin Garnett-  Once of the league's most popular players, Garnett's antics since winning a title have left a sour taste in people's mouths.  Boston loves him.  Small, European guards hate him.

4.)  Kevin Durant-  People love that he is a hard-working, humble kid with all the talent in the world who plays on a small-market team.  People are skeptical that he is a hard-working, humble kid with all the talent in the world who plays on a small-market team.  Too good or too good to be true?

5.)  Steve Nash-  I thought by now people would understand how great the guy is and how valuable a player he is.  It's amazing what I read on forums about the guy though.

Lebron James just missed the cut.  He would have been high, but the city of Cleveland has so much hate for him that aliens would need to come down and serenade Lebron with hymns of praise just to even out the love/hate ratio of LBJ in the world.  When you need to introduce new beings to a planet in order to even out the amount of love and hate you get, you aren't really polarizing.

B-B-But...Why?

First, I want to see if he is a legitimate MVP candidate.  Then we can go on to why he is polarizing based on his candidacy.

I'm not going to advocate Rose being selected MVP of the league, simply because I haven't gone through all the candidates.  I'm going to merely see if he seems like a candidate.  I'm saying "candidate," or derivatives of the word, way too much for my own liking.   

Rose's adjusted plus/minus numbers look pretty damn good right now.  I'll refer you to this blog, since Doc makes better sense of APM numbers than I do.   APM has its problems, but like all stats, it indicates something.  Use it as an indicator, and you're fine.

Rose also produces raw stats.  24.6/8.2/4.4 is a gaudy stat-line for any player.  He's a top ten scorer in the league in terms of volume and is close to league-average for efficiency.  That's not remarkable, but it's pretty damn good for a point guard who is also ranked in the top ten in assists per game average.  The dude simply produces.

The stats mean nothing without context though.  What type of player is  Rose?  He's a slashing point guard with burgeoning 3-point shooting marksmanship and the ability to move into spaces in the mid-range to get a shot off.  He has improved his ability to get to the free throw line as well, mainly because instead of using his possibly league-best body control to contort around defenders to get shots off, he's more accepting of the contact.  He's not Chris Paul or Deron Williams when it comes to vision or passing, but he makes plays for others in a more sophisticated way than just some good scorer drawing attention and kicking it out to a shooter.  He can settle down an offense and be a real point guard.  He's an explosive athlete and one of the best ball-handlers in the league.  He's Steve Francis with a brain.   

What does that skill-set and production do for Chicago?  That's the issue.  Well, it does a lot.  Rose needs to handle the ball an enormous amount of the time, initiating the offense, creating for himself, and setting up his teammates.  Chicago has good passers in their line-up, but they have virtually zero play-making or ball-handling outside of Rose.  Keith Bogans was used as a prop in my opening stanza in this post.  Luol Deng's handles are made more for slashing and attacking the basketball, not probing a defense or bringing the ball up the floor.  Kyle Korver is an off-ball shooter.  C.J. Watson is Chicago's solid back-up point guard and is tenth in minutes played per game for the team, as Rose plays over three-fourths of every game he appears in.  That puts more pressure on Rose to produce something magical than Dr. Dre must feel as he finishes producing his decade-of-hype-album Detox.

Rose needs to break traps, get the ball to his scorers in certain positions (Deng on the wing, Korver off screens, Boozer on the pick-n-roll or in the mid-post, etc.), probe defenses, make post-entry passes, and make plays.  His team is as flawed as the mid-'90's Orlando Magic teams were where Penny Hardaway was misused.  Whenever I watched Penny, he looked like a shooting guard with really good passing ability.  He was thrust into being point guard for ORL because of the hype of being the new Magic Johnson and because of team necessity.  Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson were elementary ball-handlers, and there was no depth on the team.  Penny had to do so much heavy-lifting for that team.  Rose is at an advantage because he is an actual point guard and he can defend his natural position on the other side of the floor, something Penny didn't get to do in most matchups.  Penny's main advantage in the half-court was being able to dump the ball to Shaq, an all-time great offensive anchor himself.  Chicago doesn't have anything close to O'Neal.

Rose has so much responsibility for Chicago because the team is actually flawed offensively.  Deeply flawed.  With only one guy being able to effectively handle the ball while passing, play-making, driving, and shooting, an offense can only manipulate a defense so much.  Scoring is taxing on that player since he doesn't get to play off-ball.  Thus, Chicago is average offensively despite having a home-run hitter on their team.  Somebody like Berri says that Rose should give up some field goal attempts because players like Boozer are more efficient, but that philosophy ignores the physics of basketball.  How do Deng and Boozer and Korver and Noah get those extra shots?  How does Rose simply "give" shots to other players when he's the one that needs to manipulate the offense.  Nobody manipulates the offense for his benefit.
    

Then we get to health.  Chicago hasn't even had their full line-up in for much time, dealing with injuries to big men Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah.

While Chicago's defense has been stellar and given the most credit for Chicago's record by Rose's detractors, Rose is a part of that defense.  That way of thinking also ignores the fact that Rose doing all the heavy-lifting on offense means more energy for the other players for defense.  A team needs both offense and defense, and Rose leading a defensive-oriented team with his offensive prowess makes what he does even more valuable.  Isn't that what the MVP is all about?  Value to a team?

Yeah, I think Rose is an MVP candidate.

Roses are Red, Violets are Blue....

I'm going to posit that the detractors of Rose are skeptical of Rose's MVP argument for two reasons.  One is that they don't understand the difference between how good a player and how valuable he is to a team (also, they probably don't think Rose is that good as a player).  That is self-explanatory.  The other, even more ignorant reason, is because they don't want to give the MVP to a player who hasn't paid his dues, who hasn't struggled or missed out on the MVP or has legendary moments that need to be immortalized with something tangible.  Despite being a hyped number one pick, Rose was not destined to be an MVP.  Not this early at least.   

Lebron was destined.  Kobe's three titles and 81 points and struggles on the Lakers despite being arguably the best player in the league had to be rewarded.  Dirk's time had come after giving a half-decade worth of consistency as a unique type of player in NBA history as well as being one of the greatest foreign players ever.  Nash had paid his dues in the league, had struggled to find a niche; Phoenix's different style of play relative to the competition of the year may have been ground-breaking, and its catalyst may have needed to be recognized.  Garnett, Duncan, Malone, and O'Neal had paid their dues.  Iverson was controversial enough that a feel-good story about a story-book season in an era that ushered in a street-ball attitude got a street-baller like Iverson an MVP trophy (plus, umm, he was good).  Jordan is Jordan is Jordan is Jordan is Jordan.  Barkley, Olajuwon, and Robinson paid their dues as well.  As did Magic, Bird, Moses, and Dr. J.  In the modern era, an MVP has never had the same background as Derrick Rose, has never had the same lack of struggle or lack of the need to be immortalized.

People think Rose doesn't need to be immortalized yet.

I'm not saying Rose should be MVP.  But to deny him because of that is ignorant.  Whether you think Rose is going to go down as a top-20 player all-time or top-5 point guard all-time should have no bearing on what you think of Rose's value to the 2011 Chicago Bulls in the regular season.  If he deserves the award, he deserves the award.

Superstar Swingers

My post is in response to Doctor MJ's "Chamberlain Theory."   This was his general conclusion:

"There is more to judging the effectiveness of a scorer, or a player in general, than simply his most obvious related statistics, and pursuit of those obvious statistics without proper awareness for the rest of the court can erase most if not all of a scorer’s positive impact, even when those obvious statistics are as great as any in all of history."
  

In basketball, attacking the basket and scoring buckets efficiently occurs when the offense manipulates the defense. The offensive players always have to remember that not only are they a five-man unit with a singular goal, but that defensive players are a five-man unit with a singular goal as well. 

Building chemistry on defense is easier because the five pieces don't have an object- the ball- to fight over. There is less selfishness, and thus a greater desire to accomplish the common goal. The offense's advantage is that the defense is reactive to it. Generally, the offense always makes the first move. The more you manipulate the defense, the more chaotic the formation of the five-man defense becomes. Hopefully for the offense, the defense makes a mistake (in the NBA, before 24 seconds). Hopefully for the defense, the chemistry and combined effort of the individual pieces prevail, and the defense takes the ball away somehow without the ball going in the basket.

The problem for coaches is figuring out how to best manipulate a defense with his or her five pieces.

It's great when a coach says to pound the ball into Shaquille O’Neal and space the floor or let Lebron James create or let Michael Jordan iso or put the ball in Wilt Chamberlain’s hands. Yeah, that's fine. They are talented offensive players. We get it. If we get it, so will the defense. Cleveland fans have realized this the past two years. You can't just space the floor and let one guy do all the work, regardless of how efficient he is and how he creates for others. Ironically, Orlando found this out in the 2009 Finals, right after they took Lebron's team out. Orlando's plan was to spread the floor with 3-point shooters and let them play a give-and-take game with their dominant center, Dwight Howard.  I don't think Orlando lost because Dwight had limited post moves at the time. I think they lost because they couldn't manipulate the opposing defense enough with the strategy of spacing the floor with jump shooters. When L.A. took those 3's away, Orlando's perimeter offensive players seemed to have no idea what to do.  Mickael Pietrus and Rashard Lewis looked clueless as they put the ball on the floor and took awkward-looking floaters. 

This strategy of spacing the floor with a bunch of spot-up shooters is a dangerous trend in the modern NBA because it ignores the other facets of playing off the ball that are sometimes more effective in the long run at manipulating a defense. Cutting, offensive rebounding, slashing off of the cross-court pass/inside-out pass, simply moving without the ball to manipulate the guy guarding you- i.e. a piece of the defense, moving the ball unselfishly a la Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett in 2008, etc. These are all extremely effective ways of attacking a defense. 

A superstar making swing passes makes an effective offense. 

Look at Jordan and Scottie Pippen in the triangle offense. They were wing players who handled the ball and weren't elite outside shooters.  It doesn't seem like the ideal duo.  Yet, it worked.  Why?

They were great off-ball players and great offensive rebounders for their respective positions. MJ moved well without the ball. The triangle made it harder than ever to guard Jordan because instead of MJ creating with a defense able to focus on him and his effect on teammates, he was attacking at points in time when the defense had no clue the attack was coming. The triangle is a great offensive system because it rewards player movement and ball movement, instead of just standing around and watching your superstar go to work and simply playing off of him.

Look at Shaq in Orlando. The offensive strategy was to get the ball to Shaq and then space the floor with shooters. You can do so many more effective things with a dominant offensive player like Shaq. The triangle took advantage of that starting in 2000, and Shaq had his greatest team and individual success because of that. 

A more modern example is Miami. Dwyane Wade and James are underrated long range shooters, but that certainly isn't their strength. By my observations, they are doing just fine together though. Why? Because they take advantage of each other's presence on the court. A reasonable account of a good Miami possession goes like this:

Wade slashes from the top of the key and gets into the paint.  He passes out to Mario Chalmers in the corner, who swings it to Lebron on the wing. Now instead of Lebron driving into the teeth of a set defense every single time like he did in Cleveland, he is driving by a recovering defender and into the heart of an already chaotic defense (chaotic because they had to stop Wade). Miami will get:

1. Another series of passes resulting in another slash by a superstar

2. An efficient shot at the rim by James

3. Free throws for James

4. An open, in-rhythm 3-pointer from one of the spot-up shooters

All it takes is a little patience. Just manipulate the defense enough, and you'll get your efficient shot.

You don't manipulate a defense with one guy doing all the heavy lifting, regardless of his talent. He can be the key. He can be the base on which your offense is built. But he can't do everything. That's why in the playoffs, your fourth, fifth, and sixth plays/options/best players always make the difference. You can't make a difference if your role is to stand 25 feet away from the place where you want to put the ball. It makes things too easy for a defense. In a seven game series, those first few options will be taken away when it matters most.

You need a plan B. You need a plan F, too.

I totally agree with the Chamberlain Theory. Even what looks to be the most dominant scorer ever can have a net "blah" effect on his team's offense. Who better to represent that than the king of stats?