Separating the Grownups From the Kids in Basketball
Whenever a professional sports team starts a season in a particularly atrocious fashion, someone inevitably half-seriously says that (insert name of best college team that season in that sport) could beat the struggling professional team. While that may be a good punchline for a joke, it is not serious analysis.
For a hot minute, we heard speculation that Duke's basketball team could beat the Cleveland Cavaliers. While Duke looks like a serious NCAA championship contender and the Cavaliers do not look very good at all--although they have played a lot better in their past two games, beating Philadelphia and Houston--the idea that a college team is better than an NBA team is not well thought out, as we could all see on Wednesday as Gonzaga defeated Duke 89-87 in the Maui Invitational Championship game. Are we now supposed to think that at least two college teams could beat the Cavaliers?
The notion that even the best college team is better than the worst NBA team is not logical. The worst NBA team has multiple players who starred in college and/or internationally; the NBA players are, in general, much more mature physically, mentally and emotionally than college players.
Even if the best college team on its best day could beat the worst NBA team on its worst day one time (which is possible, though not likely if the NBA team is taking the game seriously), that college team would not win 10 games over the course of an NBA season, while that worst NBA team would be a heavy favorite to win the NCAA title.
The reality is that
Early Entry Players Have Diluted Both College and Pro Basketball, as I noted over a decade ago: "March Madness is always exciting...but it is obvious that the overall level of play in college basketball is not as
high as it used to be--and that is hardly a surprise considering how
many of the very best players are 'one and done' guys who go to the NBA
after their freshman seasons, not to mention the number of players who
went straight to the NBA from high school in the past decade before the
NBA forbade that from happening. For better or worse, most of the best
basketball players in the world who are 19 or older are all in the NBA."
The college game was undoubtedly better and deeper in the past than it is now, which is not to say that the great college teams from previous eras could have beaten the worst NBA teams. Think about it this way: it has been three decades since the best college players in the U.S.--not the best team, but the best players taken from all of the top teams--could win an Olympic gold medal. The pro game, whether overseas or in the NBA, is simply a level above the college game. Both sports should be appreciated on their own merits but no matter how good a college team looks against other college teams and/or how bad a pro team looks against other pro teams there is a clear separation between the pro ranks and the amateur ranks.
Charley Rosen put it well over a decade ago in response to a reader's question about the pro game versus the college game: "The NBA game has a huge advantage in player talent, offensive and defensive prowess, coaching, officiating and the overall quality of performance in every aspect but one. The only advantage the college game enjoys is the consistent enthusiasm of its players. And this is true only because some veteran NBA players on basement-dwelling teams will take an occasional game off late in the season. The worst NBA team would trounce the NCAA champs by upwards of 30 points."
Labels: Charley Rosen, Cleveland Cavaliers, Duke, Gonzaga, NBA, NCAA
posted by David Friedman @ 3:06 AM
Echoes from Laettner's Shot Still Reverberate 20 Years Later
Gene Wojciechowski's new book
The Last Great Game: Duke vs. Kentucky and the 2.1 Seconds That Changed Basketball meticulously details the circumstances and aftermath of Christian Laettner's game-winning shot against Kentucky in the 1992 NCAA East Regional Final. Wojciechowski begins with the most strategically surprising aspect of that play--Kentucky Coach Rick Pitino did not deploy a defender to contest Grant Hill's inbounds pass--before providing tremendous historical context about a great game that culminated with one of the most indelible moments in sports history.
After hooking the reader with a brief account of the astonishment that basketball observers--including Dick Vitale, Jalen Rose and P.J. Carlesimo--felt about Pitino's defensive strategy on the final play of the game, Wojciechowski circles back in time to describe how Pitino and Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski first arrived at their respective schools and how they both rebuilt programs that had fallen on hard times.
Krzyzewski recently set the all-time NCAA record for career wins (breaking the mark held by Bobby Knight, who coached Krzyzewski at West Point), a feat that seemed unimaginable in the early 1980s when Duke alumni and fans demanded that Athletic Director Tom Butters fire Krzyzewski. The Krzyzewski era at Duke hardly got off to a rousing start; in his first three years, the Blue Devils failed to qualify for the NCAA Tournament and set the school's single season loss record. Krzyzewski's 1-6 head to head record against Tobacco Road rival North Carolina during this period exasperated Duke partisans.
Duke started out 8-0 in 1984 and posted a 15-1 overall mark before losing four straight ACC games. Butters arranged a meeting with Krzyzewski and said, "Mike, we've got a problem. The problem is we've got a public that doesn't know how good you are. We've got a press that's too damn dumb to tell them how good you are. But my greatest problem is that I've got a coach who I'm not sure knows how good he is." Butters then offered Krzyzewski a five year contract extension. The Blue Devils earned their first NCAA Tournament berth of the Krzyzewski era with a 24-10 record and two years later they advanced to the NCAA Championship Game. It is easy to focus on the "lead actor" when telling the story of a famous person's life but without the encouragement of a "supporting actor" like Butters the world may never have had the opportunity to see Krzyzewski's greatness fully blossom.
Pitino arrived at Kentucky right after the program narrowly avoided the so-called death penalty in the wake of 18 violations committed during the Eddie Sutton regime (Sutton was not directly implicated, though it is difficult to believe that he had no idea what was going on under his watch, including the fact that his assistant Dwane Casey--who is now the coach of the Toronto Raptors--sent $1000 to the father of recruit Chris Mills). Pitino, after a quick rise through the collegiate ranks, had recently turned the New York Knicks into a legitimate contender but he was locked in a power struggle with General Manager Al Bianchi. At first Pitino was not sure if he wanted to relocate his family from New York to Kentucky and Kentucky Athletic Director C.M. Newton turned his attention to P.J. Carlesimo, who had just led Seton Hall to an NCAA Championship Game loss to Michigan. It seemed like Kentucky was on the verge of hiring Carlesimo when a funny thing happened: someone decided that Carlesimo's beard was weird and that it would not work to have a bearded Northerner helming the Wildcats. Suddenly, Carlesimo stated that he never really had been interested in leaving Seton Hall and the Wildcats were back to square one. Pitino had turned down the job the first time Newton offered it but upon further consideration Pitino accepted the offer and boldly promised to lead the disgraced program to a national title.
Krzyzewski coached Duke to runner-up finishes in the NCAA Tournament in 1986 and 1990 before capturing his first NCAA title in 1991. Pitino's first Kentucky squad went 14-14 in 1990 but his 1991 team improved to 22-6. Both teams entered the 1992 season with legitimate championship aspirations and those aspirations collided on March 29, 1992 in the NCAA East Regional Final as the teams battled to earn a Final Four berth.
Duke was led by Christian Laettner, who was perceived as a sneering rich kid who played with an edge, the kind of player who you hated if he was on the other team and might have still found irritating at times even if he was on your own team. Laettner actually did not come from a wealthy family and the first time he made it to the Final Four with Duke his parents skipped that month's mortgage payment in order to travel to Seattle to watch him play in person. Although Laettner was wrongly viewed by some as a kid who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, the perception of his edginess was quite correct; Laettner grew up playing against older and bigger opponents, so he quickly learned how to take (and give) blows and he would not back down from anyone. Jamal Mashburn, a dynamic offensive player who could both score in the paint and nail the three point shot, led Kentucky. Both Laettner and Mashburn would later make the NBA All-Star team; several other players from both teams eventually played in the NBA, including Duke's Grant Hill, who made the All-Star team seven times and has recovered from a serious ankle injury to still be a productive player in 2012 at the age of 39.
Duke entered the 1992 East Regional Final as a solid favorite against Kentucky but Pitino thought that his team had a good chance to pull off the upset based on three factors: (1) Even though Duke had the more talented team, Pitino believed that Mashburn would prove to be the single best player on the court; (2) Kentucky's unique style--based on applying intense defensive pressure and shooting a lot of three pointers--would pose problems for Duke; (3) Duke had not played in many close games, so if Kentucky stayed in contact and gained confidence then the Wildcats could go on a game-winning run in the closing minutes. Pitino felt that if he employed the pressure defense too early in the game then Duke's starters would have enough energy to fight through it--thus gaining confidence while also deflating Kentucky's confidence--but if Kentucky could keep the score close without the pressure defense and then apply pressure in the final 10 minutes the Blue Devils might get rattled and/or fatigued.
The game unfolded according to Pitino's plan. Kentucky took an early 20-12 lead and only trailed 50-45 at halftime. Duke pulled ahead 67-55 by the 11:08 mark of the second half and at that point Pitino called a timeout in order to instruct his players to apply the pressure defense the rest of the way. Kentucky sliced Duke's lead to 67-63 in a little over a minute. Two minutes later, momentum could have--and should have--swung Kentucky's way after Laettner stepped on fallen Kentucky player Aminu Timberlake, an action that was worthy of ejection; however, the game officials elected to simply hit Laettner with a technical foul. Kentucky's players neither appreciated that ruling nor the fact that Laettner seemed to have singled out the one player--a skinny, well-mannered freshman--who would not respond confrontationally (that is the kind of move that Kevin Garnett and Kenyon Martin later became well known for in the NBA, taking a verbal and/or physical shot at a younger, smaller opponent while studiously avoiding confrontations with tough guys who would not tolerate such conduct).
The game was tightly contested the rest of the way and the outcome would not be decided until the final 2.1 seconds of overtime. If you are a true basketball fan then you have already seen Grant Hill's full court pass followed by Christian Laettner's game-winning shot many times but Wojciechowski's
The Last Great Game does an excellent job of not only recreating one of the seminal moments in college basketball but also giving the reader an understanding of the thoughts, emotions and motivations of the participants from both sides of this dramatic contest.
Although Laettner's shot ended the game, it did not end that season and does not end the book; the Blue Devils still needed to win two more games to complete their run of back to back titles and Duke accomplished this by knocking off Indiana and the upstart, Fab Five-led Michigan Wolverines. Wojciechowski takes the reader behind the scenes of both of those games as well.
Should Pitino have put a defender on Hill to contest that fateful inbounds pass? Wojciechowski exaggerates a bit when he deems this "the eternal basketball question" but he is right this question is not easy to answer. Pitino's thinking at the time was that if he put a defender on Hill then Hill might run the baseline and Duke could employ an old strategy of Dean Smith's, placing a screener in the defender's path to try to draw a foul. Pitino considered the long pass to be a low percentage play whether or not it was contested and thus preferred to sandwich Laettner with two defenders; unfortunately for Kentucky, those defenders--concerned about being called for a foul--played very tentatively and gave Laettner plenty of room to catch the ball, take a rhythm dribble and launch a very controlled shot.
Pitino, who led Kentucky to a National Championship in 1996, casually dismisses the strategic question: "People make too much of it."
Errata1) On page 61, the text states that Christian Laettner "made his official Duke playing debut November 19, 1998, at the Tipoff Classic in Springfield, Massachusetts." Laettner's freshman year began in 1988, not 1998.
2) There are multiple references to a 1988-89 Duke senior named "Smith" but his first name is not directly mentioned in the text (it is indirectly referred to in a quote) nor is he listed in the book's Index (John Smith is the full name of the player in question).
3) On page 114, the 6-8 Billy Owens is referred to as a guard. While Owens did handle the ball like a guard, he played forward at Syracuse and should thus have been described as a forward (in the NBA, Owens played both forward and guard but the book is referring to his college career).
Labels: Christian Laettner, Duke, Gene Wojciechowski, Grant Hill, Jamal Mashburn, Kentucky, Mike Krzyzewski, Rick Pitino
posted by David Friedman @ 2:45 AM
Grant Hill's Open Letter About ESPN's Fab Five Film Speaks Volumes
ESPN's "Fab Five" documentary examined the impact that Michigan's 1991 freshman class had not only on college basketball but society in general. During the film, the four members of the Fab Five who participated in the project* graphically described how they felt about the Duke basketball program and some of Duke's players. The opinions that the Michigan players expressed--specifically that the Duke players lacked toughness and that the black Duke players were "Uncle Toms" (a powerfully negative allegation for one black person to hurl against another black person)--are ignorant; the Duke players proved their toughness by beating the Fab Five every time Duke faced Michigan (including the 1992 NCAA Championship Game) and the "Uncle Tom" slur is ridiculous: less than four decades ago, Civil Rights leaders marched and died precisely for the purpose of ensuring that blacks would have equal opportunities in the educational system and the work force, so it is foolish to belittle anyone who correctly took advantage of opportunities to create a better life for himself and his family. Duke star Grant Hill was singled out for a lot of verbal abuse by the Fab Five players and he authored an eloquent response that refuted everything they said without personally attacking them; frankly, if I were in Hill's shoes I am not sure I would have made such a measured response. Here is a brief selection from Hill's essay:
I come from a strong legacy of black Americans. My namesake, Henry Hill, my father’s father, was a day laborer in Baltimore. He could not read or write until he was taught to do so by my grandmother. His first present to my dad was a set of encyclopedias, which I now have to remind me of the importance of education. He wanted his only child, my father, to have a good education, so he made numerous sacrifices to see that he got an education, including attending Yale. This is part of our great tradition as black Americans. We aspire for the best or better for our children and work hard to make that happen for them. Jalen’s mother is part of our great, black tradition and made the same sacrifices for him.
It is unbeknownst to me what Jalen meant by his convoluted reference to black players at Duke considering how little he knows about any of them. My teammates—all of them, black and white—were a band of brothers who came together to play at the highest level for the best coach in basketball...My mother always says, “You can live without Chaucer and you can live without calculus, but you cannot make it in the wide, wide world without common sense.” As we get older, we understand the importance of these words. Adulthood is nothing but a series of choices: you can say yes or no, but you cannot avoid saying one or the other. In the end, those who are successful are those who adjust and adapt to the decisions they have made and make the best of them.You can read Hill's complete rebuttal
here.While Hill focused specifically on the slurs that the Fab Five directed toward him and his teammates, Jason Whitlock
declares that the "Fab Five" film rewrites history:
The legacy of the Fab Five is that they were on the cutting edge of America’s unashamed embrace of style over substance... The Fab Five are taking credit for the real accomplishments of John Thompson’s and Patrick Ewing’s Georgetown Hoyas.It was Thompson’s all-black, Ewing-led teams a decade before the Fab Five that shook the foundation of college basketball, changed the complexion of starting lineups across the country, opened coaching doors that had previously been closed to blacks and paved the way for black sportswriters at major newspapers.It's easy to forgive Rose for his lack of self-awareness. It's America. In this country, self-awareness and common sense are our most rare commodities.What's not easy to excuse is the clueless robbery of what Thompson, Ewing, Bill Martin, Reggie Williams, Horace Broadnax and David Wingate accomplished.They won championships--conference and national. They scared and intimidated the establishment. They were the inner-city black kids who left a legacy of jobs and playing opportunities for other impoverished minorities that exposes the lack of substance in the fads popularized by the Fab Five."Hoya Paranoia" is the story that deserves celebration and should serve as a teaching tool. Fab Five is a safe, harmless story celebrating black kids for choosing style over substance.-----
*Chris Webber, who later pleaded guilty to a criminal contempt charge relating to his false testimony about hundreds of thousands of dollars that he received from booster Ed Martin, declined to be associated in any way with the film. The court fined Webber $100,000 and ordered him to perform 300 hours of community service; the NBA suspended Webber for three games without pay after Webber pleaded guilty.
Labels: Chris Webber, Duke, Fab Five, Grant Hill, Jalen Rose, Jimmy King, Michigan, Ray Jackson
posted by David Friedman @ 4:48 AM
ESPN's NBA/NCAA Announcer Swap Showcases Differences Between College and Pro Hoops
On Wednesday night, ESPN announcing crews consisting of Mike Tirico/Jeff Van Gundy/Mark Jackson and Dan Shulman/Dick Vitale switched roles, with Tirico/Van Gundy/Jackson calling Duke's 79-67 victory at Cameron Indoor Stadium over Davidson while Shulman/Vitale called Denver's 108-97 home win over Miami.
Before recapping both games/telecasts, I'm still trying to figure out why Stuart Scott kept pronouncing Curry's name "Steph-on" when the correct pronunciation is "Steph-en" (rhymes with Geffen); similarly, Deron Williams is not pronounced "Dare-on" (Stephen A. Smith still gets that one wrong) and Bryon Russell is not "Byron" (too many people to count have messed that one up over the years). Announcers have game notes and teleprompters, so it should not be that difficult to correctly pronounce two syllable names.
Some fans praise the "atmosphere" of college hoops and refuse to watch the NBA, while other fans enjoy the superior athleticism and level of play featured in the NBA game. I love hoops, period, but I am definitely an NBA guy more than an NCAA guy; the NBA game has the best players, the best teams and, though this may shock casual fans, the best coaches and the best referees. As for the differing "atmospheres," I have never believed that how the crowd is acting or what the fans are chanting should affect my enjoyment of the game--particularly if I am not even at the game, but just watching it on TV; I want to see basketball played at a high level and what happens on the court interests me much more than what is going on in the stands.
Early in the Duke-Davidson game, there were some examples of why the NBA game is superior:
1) The college game is slower and less explosive/athletic.
2) The action is disjointed because of frequent timeouts and, in this particular game, a flurry of early turnovers.
3) College referees often seem like they want to be at the center of the show, calling ticky-tack fouls that add to the disjointed nature of the game and affect player rotations due to early foul trouble.
Then there are the rules differences. For instance, the NBA introduced the semi-circle under the hoop designating the "restricted area" in order to clarify exactly how to make a block/charge call and also to dissuade defenders from arriving too late too close to the hoop and potentially undercutting high flying offensive players. There were several questionable charging calls early in the Duke-Davidson game and Van Gundy suggested that the NCAA would be wise to implement the "restricted area" rule in its game; during NBA games, if a referee calls a charge after a player has passed the ball and the play has continued Van Gundy will deride that as a "college call" and say that it should have been a "play on" situation.
Duke neutralized NCAA scoring leader Stephen Curry early in the game by shadowing him with two players. Van Gundy had a great line when he said that although Davidson Coach Bob McKillop expressed some concern about overutilizing Stephen Curry this season that early in the game Curry was being "underutilized"; NBA teams generally build their game plans around getting the ball to their best players, forcing the opposing team to trap that player and thus creating opportunities for his teammates. Davidson fell behind 5-0, 9-3 and 13-7 before trailing 37-24 at halftime. Curry did not score in the first 13:57 and had just eight points by halftime. Duke extended the lead to 57-31 early in the second half and it looked like this game was going to be a total snoozer but then Curry finally broke loose and he rallied Davidson to within 69-61 with 3:53 left. Duke called timeout and then scored six straight points to end the threat. Curry finished with 29 points (10-22 field goal shooting, 1-8 three point shooting), eight rebounds, six assists, two steals and seven turnovers.
ESPN ran a graphic showing how Jackson and Van Gundy rate Curry (on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the best) in terms of point guard skills, defense, shooting and intangibles: Jackson gave Curry 8, 7, 10 and 10 respectively, while Van Gundy gave Curry 5, 4, 10 and 8. Van Gundy's main critique of Curry is that, although he has good court vision, he still makes questionable decisions (i.e., the six turnovers). Van Gundy said that this is not unusual for a player who is making the transition from shooting guard to point guard.
Tirico mentioned that he asked Bob Knight about how well Curry would perform if he played at a school in a major conference and Knight said that Curry would do even better than he is doing now because he would be surrounded by better players. Jackson agreed with that sentiment completely, while Van Gundy agreed in principle but noted that if Curry played for a bigger school right from the start then he would not have had the same opportunity to keep logging heavy minutes while making mistakes/committing turnovers.
I believe that Curry is indeed the kind of player who will do better when surrounded by better players and in that sense I think that his NBA career will stand in marked contrast to J.J. Redick's; the sharpshooter from Duke has been unable to establish himself in the NBA because at that level he cannot create his own shot, create shots for others or defend and there are plenty of other players who--even if they can't shoot wide open shots quite as well as Redick does--are markedly better at all other facets of the game at the NBA level than he is. Curry can pass off of the dribble, he can drive to the hoop and finish with a dunk, he has quick hands and he can slide his feet well enough to at least be adequate defensively at the NBA level. Curry can also dribble down court at full speed, stop and shoot a step back three pointer, which--combined with his ability to handle the ball and drive to the hoop--means that he will be able to get his shot off in the NBA; in other words, his game is very similar to his father's, though I would say that
Dell Curry was a bit bigger and stronger while Stephen is quicker and a bit more clever as a ballhandler. In addition to the aforementioned similarities with his father, Stephen Curry also reminds me a bit of Jeff Hornacek, a lights out shooter who could play point guard in a pinch.
Near the end of the game, Jackson declared, "Steph Curry, right now, is a starting point guard in the NBA...This guy has special talent as far as shooting the basketball, he's a willing passer and he competes." Van Gundy sounded a more cautionary note, saying that whether or not Curry starts immediately will depend on which team drafts him and that Curry may struggle a bit in terms of learning to defer to better players after spending most of his college career having free rein to play through his mistakes; essentially, Van Gundy reiterated the reasons that he thinks that in the long run it benefited Curry to go to Davidson as opposed to starting out his college career at a bigger school. Jackson clarified that he did not mean that Curry could start at point guard for any NBA team but rather simply that he is good enough to start at point guard for several NBA teams, particularly the kinds of teams that will have high draft picks.
Right after the Duke-Davidson game concluded, ESPN telecast Denver's win over Miami. Carmelo Anthony sat out due to his broken right hand but a trio of Nuggets led the way with 21 points each (Chauncey Billups, Linas Kleiza, J.R. Smith). Dwyane Wade scored a game-high 31 points, while Shawn Marion had 25 points and 13 rebounds, his best all-around performance this season. Denver jumped out to an 8-0 lead and never trailed while improving to 4-2 this season without Anthony, who previously was hampered by an elbow injury.
The Nuggets historically have enjoyed a strong home court advantage (14-4 in Denver this season), while the young Heat are not a good road team (6-10), so even without Anthony it is not at all surprising that Denver won. The Nuggets face a "good news/bad news" schedule in the next couple weeks: seven of their next eight games are at home but six of those seven games are against teams with winning records; it will be interesting to see if home court advantage is enough to cancel out not only Anthony's absence but also Denver's recent tendency to beat up on sub-.500 teams (17-1 this year) while not doing so great against plus-.500 teams (8-11).
I respect Hall of Famer Nancy Lieberman's contributions to the game of basketball and have always been fascinated by the important role she played in transforming Martina Navratilova into an all-time tennis great but--as I mentioned in a
recent post--when Lieberman works as a sideline reporter at NBA games she has a propensity to ask questions that do not have much to do with what actually is happening during the game. After the first quarter in Denver, Denver led 27-21 and this is what she said to Miami Coach Erik Spoelstra: "You have got to be pleased. Your offense sputtered early in the first quarter, D. Wade only took four shots. How did you get back in the game?" I'm not sure why Coach Spoelstra would be pleased about a sputtering offense or his superstar, league-leading scorer only attempting four shots, but whether or not these things pleased him he completely dismissed the idea that Miami's offense was the story of the first quarter: "Offensively, that wasn't the problem. Defensively, we gave up so many easy looks. We're lucky that it's actually only a six point game right now. We have to keep on grinding because these guys are extremely dangerous on this court." The real issue for Miami versus Denver (and most other NBA teams for that matter) is that the Heat have an undersized frontcourt and thus have difficulty protecting the paint, so it would have made sense for Lieberman to ask Spoelstra what kind of defensive scheme he planned to use to compensate for that deficiency; if she has watched Miami play this year she would already know the answer (the Heat try to use the quickness of their perimeter players to wreak havoc by being disruptive and going for steals) but such a question would have elicited a response that would be educational for many viewers, which is presumably the purpose of having a sideline reporter in the first place.
Many younger fans may not have been aware that Vitale coached the Detroit Pistons prior to becoming such a well known broadcaster; he also used to do color commentary on NBA games for ESPN but his last NBA telecast was a Boston-Milwaukee playoff game in 1984. It is interesting to watch clips of Vitale from 1984; he has always been energetic but the way he acted back in the day seems positively sedate compared to his persona nowadays. I'm not saying that's bad but the reality is that, deliberately or not, over the years he has accentuated the enthusiasm that he has always felt about the game.
Vitale repeatedly hammered home the point that he considers Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade to be the three premier players in the NBA. At one point, he asked Shulman which player he would choose from that trio if he were a GM for a day. Shulman sidestepped the question by asking if he could include Chris Paul in that group but Vitale, with his characteristically robust delivery, replied, "Don't tell me you'd take Chris Paul over those three! I love Chris Paul but you can't take him over LeBron! You can't take him over LeBron! No way!" After they came back from a commercial break, Vitale would not relent, insisting--good naturedly--that Shulman answer but Shulman simply laughed and said, "I'm the play by play guy. You're the analyst. You pick." Vitale said that he loves Bryant and Wade but because of James' age and athleticism that he would take James. That is certainly a valid selection, especially if you are talking about building a team around one player for the next several years--but if you are talking purely about skill set considerations right now then I would still take Bryant over James because Bryant's no-weakness skill set slightly trumps James' superior athleticism but balky midrange/long range shooting touch.
Next, Vitale listed his "Solid Gold Seven," the players who he said could have made him a Hall of Famer as a coach instead of as a contributor: Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard and Chris Paul. "I've been known to screw up some teams," Vitale concluded, "but I couldn't mess those seven up. They're too talented." That list includes a mixture of veterans and young players but it is interesting that Shaquille O'Neal did not make the cut. Vitale said that Piston Hall of Famer Bob Lanier was the greatest player he ever coached. Vitale also pointed out that he had said that the Pistons should have drafted Anthony instead of Darko Milicic and that the Hawks should have drafted Chris Paul instead of Marvin Williams.
It is interesting to compare Vitale's style as an NBA analyst to Jackson and Van Gundy's styles as NCAA analysts. Obviously, each of them are more familiar with the players and the rules from the league that they regularly cover but Jackson and Van Gundy treated the Duke-Davidson game much like they would an NBA contest, discussing matchups, strategies and the skill sets of various players. Vitale talked about those things, too, but he probably spent more time cheerleading than analyzing. That is not necessarily a bad thing but it is probably better suited to the college game than the NBA game. Vitale repeatedly emphasized that NBA players are the best athletes in the world and I believe that this is true but he is not going to break down plays like Van Gundy, Hubie Brown or Doug Collins do. I equally enjoy watching Jackson and Van Gundy do an NBA game or an NCAA game but I probably enjoy watching Vitale do a college game more so than an NBA game. Don't get me wrong, as a one time novelty it was definitely cool to watch Vitale broadcast an NBA game and to hear him touch on the various subjects listed above but if this had been game seven of a playoff series I would have wanted to hear Van Gundy, Brown or Collins breaking down strategy from their perspectives as former NBA coaches.
Overall, the announcer swap was a fun idea and it made for two enjoyable broadcasts.
Labels: Carmelo Anthony, Davidson, Denver Nuggets, Duke, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Miami Heat, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 9:06 AM
