The world of sports is rife with hyperbole; writers and analysts have difficulties keeping things they see recently in perspective. It's actually an affliction, "prisoner of the moment" syndrome, and anyone who is required to talk as an expert on a sporting event could show symptoms, which include over-stimulation, fast speech, bug eyes, and a loss of grip on reality. Typically, to alleviate the complications, heavy doses of ESPN Classic and old game tapes are prescribed. Unfortunately, too much of said cure can cause its own disease, which is as equally disturbing and potent as POMS, and that's "over-romanticizing the past"-itis.
With the news of Shaquille O'Neal's retirement, or soon-to-be "official" retirement, came the inevitable discussions on the Big Shaq-tus' place in history. Lists were being drawn up faster than Kris Humphries running to get food stamps after all the money he spent on his engagement ring. How does Shaq's statistics and games compare with those of other great big men? Should we downgrade him for his lack of defensive POY's, rebounding titles, or any semblance of a jump shot? Did he maximize his potential with (insert tiny violin music here) ONLY 4 titles and 1 MVP? When NBA experts weren't talking about Game 2 and the Blitzkrieg Baller's torn tendon (that's Dirk Nowitzki's new nickname...copyright), they were giving their opinions on Big 32 and how he fits overall into professional basketball's historical landscape.
General consensus put Shaq on the Mount Rushmore of great centers, along with Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Hakeem Olajuwon. While Shaq was invited to the party however, he was never considered to have gone home with the best-looking girl. Everyone based their rankings on certain criteria: accumulated numbers, championships, awards, post-season performances, overall dominance, head-to-head match-ups with other great players, etc. It seemed to make sense, but the end results weren't really indicative of overall skill and impact on the game, not to mention the lack of consideration of the different eras in which these HOFers, or future HOF in Shaq's case, played. For example, look at pertinent statistics of these 5 all-time greats:
(PER stands for Player Efficiency Rating, an advanced statistic used to measure a player's overall contribution to a game by per-minute performance, with the average at 15.00)
Bill Russell-
13 seasons, 15.1 pts, 22.5 rebs, 4.3 asts, 44% fg, ? blks (didn't start keeping records until 1973),18.9 PER, 12 All-Star appearances, 11 NBA titles (2 as player/coach), 4 rebounding titles, 5 MVP's, 3 All-NBA First Teams, 8 All-NBA Second Teams, 1 NBA All-Defensive First Team (started in 1969, Russell's last year), 0 NBA Finals MVP's (weren't established until 1969 but award was named after him in 2009)
Wilt Chamberlain-
14 seasons, 30.1 pts, 22.9 rebs, 4.4 asts, 54% fg, ? blks, 26.1 PER, 13 All-Star appearances, 2 NBA titles, 11 rebounding titles, 4 MVP's, 7 All-NBA First Teams, 2 All-NBA Second Teams, 2 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 1 Finals MVP
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar-
20 seasons, 24.6 pts, 11.2 rebs, 3.6 asts, 56% fg, 2.6 blks, 24.6 PER, 19 All-Star appearances, 6 NBA titles, 1 rebounding titles, 6 MVP's, 10 All-NBA First Teams, 5 All-NBA Second Teams, 5 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 6 NBA All-Defensive Second Teams, 2 Finals MVP's
Hakeem Olajuwon-
18 seasons, 21.8 pts, 11.1 rebs, 2.5 asts, 51% fg, 3.1 blks, 23.6 PER, 12 All-Star appearances, 2 NBA titles, 2 rebounding titles, 1 MVP, 6 All-NBA First Teams, 3 All-NBA Second Teams, 3 All-NBA Third Teams, 5 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 4 NBA All-Defensive Second Teams, 2 Defensive Player of the Year Awards, 1 Finals MVP
Shaquille O'Neal-
19 seasons, 23.7 pts, 10.9 rebs, 2.5 asts, 58% fg, 2.3 blks, 26.4 PER, 15 All-Star appearances, 4 NBA titles, 0 rebounding titles, 1 MVP, 8 All-NBA First Teams, 2 All-NBA Second Teams, 4 All-NBA Third Teams,0 NBA All-Defensive First Teams, 3 NBA All-Defensive Second Teams, 3 Finals MVP's
Now, every big man has impressive resumes, and I left off a number of details like records and gold medals won because it would have created extreme chaos. Also, I didn't want to give some statistics more importance than others by giving the players their rankings in those categories.(By the way, these 5 players are pretty close in rankings for most statistics, minus Bill Russell in total points.) The great question is how to interpret these statistics and make fair judgements of each player and their contributions to professional basketball. We have to try and account for everything, including positive and negative externalities from off-court issues, hindrances of different eras, etc. In my mind, those additional concerns make all the difference.
For instance, Russell and Chamberlain accrued monster statistics and multiple championships during their careers, but the NBA was only 8-12 teams when they played, so they benefited from less competition. Also, the term "monster" is quite apropos for these two because in their time, the average height of NBA players was 6'2"; Russell was about 6'10" and Wilt was 7'1". So, they should have dominated the way they did because no one could guard them or impose on them physically, especially when society at that time produced so few elite athletes; George Mikan took advantage in the 1940's and 50's for the same reason. Russell and Chamberlain only had each other to compete with, essentially, throughout most of their careers.The same argument can be used for why Babe Ruth shouldn't be the greatest baseball player ever since competition suffered due to no integration or internationalization. These factors have to be considered and given real credence, and thus hold Russell and Wilt from being the greatest at their position.
The other 3 big men, who had to compete in the more modern era of basketball, came about in what I consider the Golden Age of North American sports, the 1980's and 90's. There was never a greater influx of historically great talent than in the 80's, for all sports, but particularly basketball. Many different teams had other-worldly players who were trying to build dynasties with their particular teams: Bird with the Celtics, Magic with the Lakers, Jordan with the Bulls, Isiah Thomas with the Pistons, etc. Also, the NBA had expanded to 24 teams, so there was a grind to competing in the postseason because everyone would have to go through multiple teams. Finally, the league was expanding its game internationally, which added to the talent pool even more, along with modern societal enhancements that grew players bigger and stronger. Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq had more on-court obstacles to overcome than Wilt or Russell could imagine.
Off-court issues were another story. Wilt and Russell grew up in a time when Blacks and Whites didn't play on the same court, and hardly, if ever, attended college. America was still extremely prejudiced against African Americans, so Wilt and Russell had to deal with the fact that many of the people in the country, the fans watching the game, hated them with a passion due to their beliefs, which made games more dangerous than modern players could possibly imagine. The mental toll that took on them was probably considerable, and the fact they were able to compete at such a high level was inspiring. They also couldn't benefit from the fruits of technology, such as luxury aircraft and hotels, effective work-out regiments, dieting, and yet they still managed to play almost as long as the other 3 centers considered for GOAT status. Their performances were remarkable, truly remarkable, and had the NBA been able to keep track of all the statistics they do now, they might've had more daunting numbers. (You telling me Russell wouldn't have won like 10 Defensive POY's and averaged 5 blocks a season or both Wilt and Russell wouldn't have made an All-NBA team of some kind every year?)
For these rankings though, I have to go against the grain a little bit. Kareem is number 1 for me because of his durability, his accumulated records held, his titles and accolades, his impact on the way the game was played (creation of the sky-hook), and the fact he played consistently great against the best competition. I have Russell at number 2 because of the titles, his defensive prowess and how he changed the scheme of playing championship basketball with defensive intensity that has carried itself over to the modern game, and the fact he managed to deal with the rigors of coaching, the first African American coach in the NBA, and still won 2 more times as the dominant player on his team. He also consistently whooped Chamberlain on a regular basis, especially in the playoffs. Wilt is number 3 because of his overall dominance, how he took the league by storm, and how he made it look so effortless, which unfortunately was a knock against him throughout his career. Shaq is number 4 because of his physicality, his postseason performance, and how he brought a personality to basketball that hadn't been seen by a guy his size ever. Hakeem is number 5 because of his impact on the game (the Dream Shake) and how being skilled as a big man made scoring so much easier, his annihilation of other great big men in the postseason, and his defensive superiority.
Personally, I couldn't put the older players ahead of Kareem because they were products of their eras, which wasn't wrong, but calls some things into question. Kareem came at a perfect time to display skill and intensity on the court against a number of guys who were as talented or more talented as him. However, it's not like he is playing at this time and we are blowing his accomplishments out of proportion. His contributions make him the best, in this or any other era, and I don't question it.
Sometimes, people fall in love with grainy, black-and-white taped footage because it's a peek at a time we couldn't see in person, and events look mystical in that light. Those tapes and the subjects of the tapes have romantic qualities, like characters in an epic tale. We fall in love, hype them up because they seem different than what we are used to, legends that we can gush over to kids and anyone not fortunate enough to have seen the footage. Since they came before anyone, we use them as measuring sticks, and if too much adulation is being given to unproven modern commodities, we reference the past participants, and they become retro and cool again. We have to keep facts straight though, and remember that it was just a different time with different restrictions. We must try to consider every aspect before we pass judgement, or we might pick Wilt when we should've picked Kareem
No comments:
Post a Comment