NBA
BASKETBALL: A Renewed
NBA in Just One Step Response
to "Fifteen Steps to a Better NBA," by Dennis Hans
By JASON
PALUMBO
July 3, 2001 Professional
Writer
jpalumbo@world.oberlin.edu
I recently
had a chance to watch some films from the golden age of the NBA. Larry
Bird was there. Magic Johnson was there. Julius Erving was there. Defenders
chased Bird through big screens set by number 00 and "Gumby" McHale, and
when he came open, it was a quick shot or a flip to Ainge for an open jumper.
A pick and roll between Bird and McHale. The lanes were clear because the
defenders were thinner, and the Chuck Daily - Pat Riley - Phil Jackson
stifling defense was not yet a part of the game. The more talented team,
who knew how to play as a team, won.
Of course free-agency
was not yet as rampant, and perhaps more importantly, small and large fortunes
were not handed to near all-stars by teams hungry for both young and experienced
talent. Those 1980's teams could keep a coherent offensive system running
because the starting players had years of experience together, and the
important bench players could be held onto for years. That simply isn't
possible anymore. How much could Philadelphia have used an athletic 6'
4" creator to help Iverson in the finals? Unfortunately, the instant that
Larry Hughs showed potential, he was fodder for a poor team in need of
burgeoning talent. The burgeoning process continues for Larry. Meanwhile,
the Eastern Conference Champions are in danger of losing Snow and McKie
as well.
Chicago saw
this problem when they set out toward a championship. They signed Michael
and Scottie. One-dimensional players occupied the other ten roster spots
on the only true dynasty of the communication age. Grant, Williams, Cartwright,
Perdue--nothing but rebounds, blocked shots and fouls. Paxon, Hodges, Armstrong,
Tucker--nothing but jump shots off of the creativity of Jordan and Pippen.
What happened to a team with five potential all-stars starting like the
1986 Celtics or the 1983 76ers? It became unaffordable.
But nobody
complained about that Bulls squad. The defenses were getting tighter in
response to the '89 and '90 Piston success against the Bulls which was
predicated upon double-coverage and hard fouls. The Knicks, who always
gave the bulls trouble, were particularly physical with their defense.
However, the players were still smaller than they are today, and there
was room on the court for a streaking red and black 23 to find the paint
and create offense. However, as players got bigger that changed. The "no
lay-up rule" led to clogged lanes. Big guards like Jordan and Drexler,
who could defend the quicker small guards at one end and then take advantage
of them in the post on the other, made the 6' 3" shooting guard a thing
of the past. And all the time, teams were trading little skilled players
away in exchange for big role players.
The second
Bulls team was the one that finished off the league as it once was. Jackson
figured out that if his team could stop their opponents with tight, disruptive
defense, then having a limited offense as a consequence wouldn't be that
important. If Ron Harper could keep Stockton under wraps, Rodman could
get under Alonzo's skin, and Longley could keep Shaq from dunking on a
consistent basis, then it didn't matter that three starters couldn't contribute
offensively. The Bulls defense was able to keep its opponents from scoring,
and MJ could be relied upon to put the ball in the hoop half the time.
The other team couldn't drive because of Harper, Jordan, and Pippen walling
the ball-handlers away from the basket with quick feet and long arms. The
jump-shooters couldn't get open because the opposing big men didn't need
to be double teamed. They turned basketball into a boxing match in which
both fighters kept their hands up and watched the other guy, waiting for
one big punch to put the him down. And since Jordan provided the biggest
punch, it worked.
So we come
to the present. The Shaq era is upon us. Most teams want to play inside-outside
like the Lakers do. A low-post player draws a double team, kicks the ball
out to the open man, and he shoots or passes depending on the defensive
rotation. To counter this, teams bulk up their front-courts with lots of
big, unskilled players who can afford to play tough post-defense because
it doesn't matter if they foul out. It's boring. It's stale. It's the only
way for teams with weak offenses to compete. Defenses win championships.
Bill Russell taught us that sometime in the Triassic.
Now, in an
attempt to open the game back up for skilled offenses, rules changes are
being thrown around like confetti. Force them to play fast-break ball by
allowing zone defense. Cut the shot clock. Change the incidental contact
rule. Expel the player who flops from the game. Make holding away from
the ball a flagrant. It gets pretty ridiculous, pretty quickly.
My fellow fan
and writer, Mr. Dennis Hans suggests 15 simple rule changes to correct
the stagnant state of the NBA. I'll not address his ideas individually,
because I largely agree with his arguments, especially as regards focusing
on rules we already have. Why are power-players allowed to ram their shoulders
and elbows into defenders on the blocks? Call the offensive foul, and the
need for grabbing Shaq or flopping against Karl Malone diminishes significantly.
What I disagree with is changing the rules or putting any limits on the
coaches or players. Part of the beauty of any sport is the mental game,
finding a way for the underdog to win, for a team with two all-stars like
the 1998 Jazz to beat a team with four like the 1998 Lakers. There was
something magical about the way the Bulls could use team defense to give
Jordan the chance to win a game one on one.
The changes
need to come at a more fundamental level. Fundamentally the NBA is a business.
Each team is a business. Fundamentally, the NBA runs on money, and it's
money that has derailed the game. You want to get a nice offensive system
kicking? You want a group of skilled players to click together on the floor?
Make salaries dependent upon winning percentage. Put players into different
pay ranges and then pay them the top of their range only if they win. Every
player, coach, and GM has a pay range. This way in order to earn a higher
pay-check, your team has to win. For example, a guy currently making $1
- 4 million plays for a team who's winning record is below 50%. He earns
the $1 million minimum in his contract. His team goes to the Conference
Finals he makes $3.75 million. The league should help pay the difference
between minimum and maximum based on a league tax. And of course, the salary
cap is still in effect, so great players can't all jump on one or two teams
and load it up with all the league's talent.
Perhaps a guy
like Chris Webber would be less interested in breaking up a strong and
entertaining team like the Kings if he knew that he would earn less playing
for the Cavs even if his contract was a little better in Cleveland. Maybe
a raw talent like Horace Grant who grew into a skilled player would be
less game for leaving the Bulls if he knew that winning would be more important
than showing off his new hook shot in a new city. The fact that winning
is so important might even cause a few disappointments like Shawn Kemp
or J.R. Rider to work on their bodies, games, and attitudes in order to
help their teams.
You can keep
your rule changes. I'll take my athletes motivated to win. I'll take teams
that need to keep their rising stars. I'll take a league in which the team
victory is more important than the individual accomplishment. In my league
the team play we're all crowing for will be a necessity. Necessity is the
mother of invention and the father change. Let's not try to recapture a
fancifully remembered past which was only great for a few teams. Let's
not try to push the players, coaches, and fans into a box that they've
outgrown. Let's look at what the NBA needs today: great players working
together and the best rising to the top. That is what makes any sport,
any enterprise great.
