PDA

View Full Version : Most profound NBA quote of the year


IrishHand
01-22-2003, 05:57 PM
Forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim, of the 14-27 Atlanta Hawks: "We're in a bad spot right now. But if our record was flipped, nobody would be questioning our effort or our passion."

pokerlover
01-22-2003, 06:04 PM
Can this guy spell common sense?

Clarkmeister
01-22-2003, 06:16 PM
You're just bitter that he schooled you 1 on 1.

IrishHand
01-22-2003, 07:20 PM
lol - your memory is strong

Rick Nebiolo
01-23-2003, 03:18 AM
Is it just me or has the NBA gone WAY downhill in recent years? Few things about the teams or players seems worth rooting for (and I was a big fan).

I still like that NBA column in the Sunday LA Times.

~ Rick

IrishHand
01-23-2003, 10:46 AM
Is it just me or has the NBA gone WAY downhill in recent years?
I don't think so. I think it's just completing two major transitions - the "post-Michael" transition, and the "young draft" transition.

The league made the mistake of trying to market any number of it's stars as Jordan's heirs and only now is coming to the realization that legends make the game, not the other way around. Also, some of their choices were atrocious and marked by criminal records or an apparent inability to will their teams to victory (Iverson, Garnett, Vince, McGrady et al). If the league had let things be, Shaq/Kobe/Duncan/Webber would be getting the lion's share of the hype - since they've earned it - while players like the aforementioned Iverson, etc would be trying to reach that summit. The problem is that those players simply conclude, reasonably based on perception and marketing, that they're superstars and that the reason their teams aren't title contenders is their teammates. If Jordan had thought that way, he'd have had a Barkley career instead of a Jordan career.

The league has also struggled with the increasing youth of it's draft. It used to be a given that most of the players taken in the lottery would have a significant and immediate impact on a team's fortunes. It's been 5 years since a lottery pick had a big impact (that would be Duncan in 97). Of course, the league hasn't stopped marketing the draft as a place where contenders for next year's all-star game might emerge, which is ridiculous given the fact that the majority of draftees are college sophs or younger. The NBA would be better served by dropping the draft from the radar like the NHL or MLB does. The reality is that even more lottery picks are at least a year or two away from being impact NBA players. Jay Williams was supposed to be the most NBA-ready of the top picks last year, and he's still a couple years from being "very good", much less "all-star" calibre.

The game, though, is fine. Scoring is at a good level, the players remain the best in the world by a ridiculously huge margin, the Lakers are rolling again. All is well in NBA-land.

Irish

B-Man
01-23-2003, 12:25 PM
I agree completely Rick. I used to be a huge NBA fan, but not anymore. In addition to the game not being as good or interesting as it used to be, the players are selfish, whiny spoiled brats who are given millions before thay have proven a thing.

Thank god the NFL is better than ever.

andyfox
01-23-2003, 12:36 PM
I don't enjoy is as much as I used to either. I think the legalization of zone defense has slowed the game down a lot. While I'm still something of a Laker fan, the two teams I find most enjoyable to watch are Sacramento and Dallas, basically because their idea of a game plan is to keep scoring as much as possible and not worry much about defense. Watching, say, a Boston/Atlanta game is a good sedative.

I hate it when old farts like me complain about younger people, but I also don't like what I see as the arrogance of the Kobes and Iversons when they play.

andyfox
01-23-2003, 12:38 PM
Both sentences were undoubtedly true. You want profundity, better to quote John Cole than any professional athlete. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Clarkmeister
01-23-2003, 12:54 PM
They just formailzed the legalization of zone D. It has been unofficially legal for years.

Clarkmeister
01-23-2003, 01:00 PM
I have to disagree.

I think that the league is just now starting to get good again. Lets face it. After the Bulls, there was a serious lack of quality teams in the league. The Spurs, and the first two Laker teams were IMO decent but not great teams. Last years emergence of Sacramento was a start of the revitalization of the league. Now we have Sacramento coming into their own, Dallas emerging as a threat, and other young teams progressing nicely. You can see the potential in young teams like Houston, Indiana, etc. I think the league is finally starting to head in the right direction after 3 or 4 really poor years.

And I disagree about the money. Thats the same regardless of the sport. In the NFL its just all paid up front rather than over several years.

B-Man
01-23-2003, 01:34 PM
And I disagree about the money. Thats the same regardless of the sport. In the NFL its just all paid up front rather than over several years.

Football does not have guaranteed contracts, and that makes a HUGE difference. A football team would never have a stiff like Vin Baker hanging around for 3 more years making the maximum salary. If a football team makes a mistake by handing out a giant contract, it can simply cut the player and end its obligations (granted there are salary cap implications).

Clarkmeister
01-23-2003, 01:40 PM
You missed the point. The NFL does have guaranteed contracts. They are just structrued differently. It is all paid up front in the form of the signing bonus. The #1 draft pick this year will likely get upwards of $15 mil lump sum, up front as a signing bonus, in addition to a hefty salary.

B-Man
01-23-2003, 01:50 PM
Sure, a few players at the top of the draft get enormous bonuses. However, I still think the average compensation for an NFL player is significantly lower than an NBA player (for example Tom Brady won the Super Bowl MVP, then signed for about $5mm per year; Vin Baker makes the maximum, which is whatm, about $10 or $11 mm these days?).

I haven't done the research, but I would be shocked if an average NFL player made as much as an average NBA player.

Also, the ongoing salary that an NFL player stands to lose if he is cut is significant enough to make a difference to most players. Even if a guy has $5 mm in the bank, he is not going to want to lose $1mm per year salary and be out of the league. I firmly believe this helps keep players motivated.

Clarkmeister
01-23-2003, 01:56 PM
Of course the NBA players make more. There are 12 players per team vs...what...like 48 for the NFL?

Brady also got an $8mm signing bonus.

I must have missed how having next years salary not guaranteed keeps Randy Moss motivated.

IrishHand
01-23-2003, 01:59 PM
You prefer a league where teams are decimated every year or two by free agency and the fact that they release 1/3 of their best veterans every year?

Vin Baker, Juwan Howard, et al are a dying breed and partly a product of the past NBA CBA - how many stiffs have been given max deals in the past 3 years by teams other than Dallas or New York?

And don't even try to argue that NFL has any sort of fiscal sense by comparison. Randy Moss, for example, made only $525,000 last year, yet he's one of the highest paid players in the league. How's that work? Oh year...I forgot - the NFL gives them the majority of their money before they play a down. They don't 'cut' anyone with a big salary - they cut players with big cap numbers. Basically, good players are forced to be cut because they brutally overpaid for them in the first place - not to save money that's already been spent. I will also happily refer you to Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, etc. I'd rather have Vin Baker's contract than theirs - at least he earned his with All-Star recognition and excellent all-round play before he got rich and fat. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

B-Man
01-23-2003, 02:09 PM
Ok, so now instead of disagreeing with me, you are explaining why I am right about the salaries. Yes, there are fewer basketball players than football players. That doesn't change the fact that basketball players are overpaid spoiled brats.

By the way, this link is a little outdated, but as of the 2001 season basketball players made, on average, 3 times as much as football players.

Salary Comparison (http://www.farmingdale.edu/~vogelrm/sports5a.html)

As for Randy Moss, please show me where I said every NFL player was motivated.

In general, non-guaranteed contracts help keep players motivated. Maybe you should read the capitalism vs. socialism thread if you don't understand that most basic, yet important, premise.

Clarkmeister
01-23-2003, 02:22 PM
I think all sports have their fair share of rich spoiled brats. Thats what I said in my first post. I never said NFL players were paid as much as NBA players.

NBA players aren't overpaid. They are paid exactly what they deserve. Or is it you who needs to review the capitalism vs socialism thread?

"In general, non-guaranteed contracts help keep players motivated"

For who? The players getting the huge guaranteed contracts in the NBA, NHL and MLB are the same players who get huge signing bonuses in the NFL. The elite are the same across the board. Your average Joe in the NBA isn't getting 5 year deals. Your run of the mill MLB middle reliever isn't getting anything. Most get 1-3 year contracts for not a lot of money (relatively speaking of course. Its an assload of money to me). They are plenty motivated.

Josh W
01-23-2003, 03:26 PM
Every once in a while, I come across a post like this. I'm not sure if you mean it, and I should point out completely ludicrous this statement is, or if you are saying it in jest. However, I cannot imagine why you'd say something like this if you didn't mean it at least somewhat.

And that makes your quote a little more chuckle-worthy than Shareef's.

Josh

Clarkmeister
01-23-2003, 03:36 PM
You're right. Teams didn't triple team Jordan around the court for years. Teams didn't double down on Shaq with a floater in the middle for years. Please. The reason Pippen was such a dominant defender is becaue the league allowed him to CONSTANTLY sag back and play zone.

B-Man
01-23-2003, 04:02 PM
There are so many flaws in your logic I am not sure where to begin, but here goes...

You prefer a league where teams are decimated every year or two by free agency and the fact that they release 1/3 of their best veterans every year?

Teams should be rewarded for good planning and good business. Not every team is decimated by free agency every year or two, and while there may have been instances where teams have released 1/3 of their “best” veterans every year, to suggest that is commonplace is ludicrous. Teams like Miami and Pittsburgh have managed their salary caps well and have consistently been in the playoffs for years. Teams like San Francisco and Denver have won championships, gone through salary cap hell, and come back to field strong teams again. Even the Patriots are a good example–they lost a Super Bowl, made some poor decisions and lost some key players (Curtis Martin being the prime example), deteriorated into a last-place team, then reloaded with excellent salary cap management/free agency moves (not to mention some genius coaching) and came back to win the Super Bowl.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the salary cap, nor does it take a genius to allocate limited resources in the optimum manner. I would take the NFL system in a heartbeat over the NBA system, where once a payer is signed, his contract is guaranteed and can not be terminated–it will count against the cap for its duration, regardless of whether the player remains productive.

And don't even try to argue that NFL has any sort of fiscal sense by comparison. Randy Moss, for example, made only $525,000 last year, yet he's one of the highest paid players in the league. How's that work? Oh year...I forgot - the NFL gives them the majority of their money before they play a down.

Versus the NBA, which gives millions to high school kids who usually are not productive players for years (if ever).

They don't 'cut' anyone with a big salary - they cut players with big cap numbers. Basically, good players are forced to be cut because they brutally overpaid for them in the first place - not to save money that's already been spent.

I can’t respond to this sentence because it makes no sense. What are you trying to say? Nobody is forced to be cut. Teams have limited resources and have to make choices accordingly.

I will also happily refer you to Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, etc. I'd rather have Vin Baker's contract than theirs - at least he earned his with All-Star recognition and excellent all-round play before he got rich and fat.

I never said NFL teams didn’t make mistakes–they certainly do, Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith being prime examples. The difference is that RYAN LEAF GOT CUT. His team had had enough and released him–that's it, end of story, no more obligations to Ryan Leaf, and he is off the salary cap the next year. Vin Baker, on the other hand, has to be paid for the rest of his contract, despite the fact that he is a complete stiff. He will count against his team’s salary cap whether or not he is on the team.

In the NBA, once a player signs a contract, his team is required to pay him and count him against the salary cap even if the player is completely useless. Players like Vin Baker actually have negative value. In the NFL, someone like Vin Baker would be cut in a heartbeat, and he wouldn't collect his $10mm+/year for the next 3 years.

Josh W
01-23-2003, 06:43 PM
After reading your post, I am confident you have no idea what the previous defensive rules were.

If you are trying to contend that what they did then, and what they did now are the same, you have zero credibility.

If you are not trying to make that contention, then you realize that the new zone defense rules are a major change from the old. As such, it is more than a mere formality as you previously stated.

Why did teams run "Clearouts" and "Isolations" before the new defense rules were installed? You know you cannot answer that while maintaining that the defenses were the same. Or, you can try, and look even sillier.

Josh

Clarkmeister
01-23-2003, 06:50 PM
Of course they aren't exactly the same. Duh.

However to claim that they didn't let teams play a form of zone is denial of reality. I think the NBA finally just came to its senses and said "screw it, let them do it all the way". So instead of disguising modified zone D's as loose man to man, now they can do it without fear of ridiculously inconsistent and meaningless "illegal defense" calls being made.

Teams were illegal more often than players travel or palm the ball. Theres two more rules that are a joke.

Josh W
01-23-2003, 07:27 PM
"Teams were illegal more often than players travel or palm the ball. Theres two more rules that are a joke."

At long last, we agree 110% on something.

But that's about it.

When you call illegal defense penalties meaningless, you seriously make me think that you didn't watch basketball in the mid-90's. That's why Denver beat Seattle. That's why LA beat Seattle. That's why Charles Barkely was often considered by his peers a genious. He drew more illegal defense calls than anybody I can imagine (he was always good at pointing it out to the refs, too).

The illegal D calls were very very very very very very very meaningfull. Only I may have understated it here.

As for the calls being inconsistent...well, hot damn. That's two things we agree on.

But let's not kid ourselves. The new rules aren't in place to seek out consistency and to eliminate calls (we now have defensive 3-in-the-key). I believe that the new rules are in place to help slow down Shaq. His dominance was way too extreme. And people didn't like it (I'm not making this up...about 7 to 10 days ago, espn.com ran a poll on which basketball players were most worth the price of admittion...TMac, Kobe, Garnett, Shaq, Amare, AI, LeBron James, and maybe one more....Shaq had the lowest vote total...something like 3.9%). The NBA, I feel, tried to slow him down by allowing people to pack it in when he didn't have the ball.

The defenses now and the defenses then are barely even similar. Back then, it was an era of individual defenders....Payton, Pippen, Christie, Iverson, Olajuwon...now it is an era of team defense. I mean, right now, Dallas is the 10th best defense. The only individual defender on their team that is better than average is Michael Finley. But as a team, they are good. Dirk can't guard me, but in a zone, he's highly effective because of his length.

Before the rule change, the officials missed calls. And when teams went way out of their way to play a zone D, it got called. If it didn't, it was a rarity. So maybe one or two (at the extreme most) trips down the court in a game were the D's similar between the eras. But to even try to compare them, and to say that they are the same is just foolhardy.

Josh

IrishHand
01-23-2003, 08:14 PM
Josh...no offense bud, but I can only assume from your posts that you've only been an NBA fan since the start of this year.

(1) Teams certainly have been playing zone variants for as long as I've watched the game (so 20 years at least). NBA coaches spent years accusing their opponents of doing it, then more than a few admitted to doing it after the rules were changed this past summer (Don Nelson, Phil Jackson among the more promiment).

(2) No player that I'm aware of has ever accused Barkley of being a "genius" unless the topic was "where's the nearest bar?" Just because all your images of him are of him standing at the 3 point line pointing and yelling at the player guarding him doesn't mean he 'induced' illegal defense calls. They were induced by intelligent defenders who were hoping that Charles would get the ball then jack an ill-advised "3".

(3) The zones rules were instituted for two reasons - to increase scoring and to eliminate the obvious confusion and inconsistencies associated with the prior "illegal defense" rules. Those aren't my ideas - those are straight from the NBA head office. No clue how why they thought that zones would increase scoring, but they did. However, it's clear that the latter reason was the catalyst for the change. I sat courtside for 3 1/2 years at NBA games and there were discusions amongst the refs, coaches and players as to the nature of "illegal defense" on a very regular basis. Despite years of implementation and practice, many were still bewildered. I'd like to think I'm a reasonably smart guy, and it took me the better part of a year of both re-reading the actual rules, then watching them be interpreted in games before I felt comfortable with them. The fact that it needed to be studied to be understood was a pretty clear indication it needed to be either simplified or replaced. The NBA chose the latter.

(4) Pippen is and always was an average "individual defender." However, he's one of the best "team defenders" the NBA has ever seen. Christie is likewise recognized far more for his team defense than his 1-on-1 play. Iverson is both a mediocre defender and a player of the current generation - of course, all the guys you list are contemporary players. Not quite sure what your point is.

(5) Of course defenses aren't the same now as they were a year ago (or 5 years ago, or 20 years ago). Now, they no longer have to hide their zones when they feel like using them. They can play something that both is a zone and looks like what the average fan considers a zone (presumably based on watching high school or college ball). However, that certainly doesn't mean that an intelligent NBA coach (and most are) wasn't playing zone before this year. It's not tough at all to take a normal zone and make it look exactly like man. Just have your players point at their "men" periodically, "switch" on every pick, then shift to the other 1/2 of the court if the offense uses an overload set. Watch Temple play - their zone looks an awful lot like man-to-man defense with a lot of doubling. Now go watch games where the Jordan Bulls are playing teams with top post players. You'll not an awful lot of similarities. (No, the Bulls weren't running a Temple match-up zone - but there are a lot of common elements.)

glen
01-24-2003, 01:35 AM
I like how Kenyon Martin responded to the reporters after the Nets got destroyed by the Kings. He eloquently stated, "It's just one game, Dog!"