FU Resurrected: The Art of Legacy

*blows dust and peels away cobwebs from the blog*

Yeah, yeah. I know. Long time no blog. But I've always made it clear that posts drop as often as I've had time. Frankly, I just haven't had the time. Other things and other opportunities have come about. But now that I'm able to balance all of that--and with the best NBA offseason ever--I'm back and able to philosophize about the game that is Basketball. Been away for months, but things haven't changed. Meet me after the random picture...


There's no need to recap what happened this offseason. It was practically everywhere. No links necessary. And yes, the first article back will be about "The Decision." However, it won't be approving or scolding LeBron for playing for Miami or even the hour-long special itself. Instead, this post will focus on a key point that seems to be the underlying factor for people who were against Lebron's move: legacy.

Most people (including myself, before I really thought about it) felt that Lebron changing teams and teaming with another superstar somehow hurts his legacy long-term. They feel that somehow, Lebron can no longer ascend to that "Chosen One" throne because left Cleveland. To them, Lebron's lost the chance at becoming the best basketball player ever simply by switching jerseys at 25. But is there a concrete definition of "legacy?" Or is there merely a mythological perception of it...


I believe that over time, the Elites of all sports began to share certain characteristics. And I don't just mean Hall of Famers. I'm referring to the legends--the icons that are spoken of with hallowed breaths. These players seem to have similar career paths. They play for one team most (if not all) their careers. They break a few records, pile up gaudy stats, and win multiple rings. The prime example is Jordan, who's so deified that his two years with the Wizards are viewed as though another person was player/executive in D.C. Bird and Magic spent their entire tenures immersed in the NBA's most famous rivalry; and there are certainly other sports that have players that have done the same. They get to the point where imagining them in another uniform becomes a ridiculous notion. Their franchises deem them too valuable to part with, and allow for them to retire with the squad with which they began.

There is one pro athlete who still ascended to consensus greatness despite playing for multiple teams. That is Wayne Gretzky. The Great One was so dominant as a player, that it didn't matter that he played for a few teams. He was just that good. How often Gretzky changed jerseys would have had no bearing on how is career ended because his talent was just that undeniable. Of course, hindsight is 20/20; and he's an exception to that mold that other Elite athletes fit in.

What does Gretzky's hockey greatness have to do with Lebron? Well as I stated, Lebron has been selected--justly or unjustly--as someone that can finish his career as the best to ever hoop. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't have been a big deal being made about his move to Miami, nor would there have been ESPN network time for his decision. He would have been a footnote on the bottom line and a brief segment on SportsCenter like, say, Rudy Gay was when he signed. But he wasn't...because he is Lebron. And we recognize the potential awesomeness his talents can reach.


This isn't to say that Lebron will be the GOAT; but we also can't deny that he has the capability to dethrone His Airness. This was to suggest that just because a great player changes teams does not necessarily diminish his career. Let his play on the court and his winning or lack thereof determine where he ranks among the pantheon of Basketball players--not his jersey.



Peace.

NBA Team Structure-Chaos Spectrum: An FU Graph

If you're new to FU, then allow me to explain the basis of how I see Basketball. I stand by the creed that Basketball is the only team sport in which a player fuses the game with his personality and soul. No two players can play exactly alike. Kobe can study all the Jordan film he wants, he'll will still shoot his fadeaway in his own Mamba way. Whether noticed or unnoticed, a player's "game" is defined by the kind of person he or she is. Richard Hamilton will never use screens the same way Reggie Miller does. Blake and Taylor Griffin are brothers; and even they have totally different inner methodologies that could never be copied. The shooting form in my banner pic is mine and mine alone. I'm not referring to how productive a player is on the court; so the last guy on the Nuggets isn't a worse person than Carmelo Anthony because he isn't as good as 'Melo. I'm theorizing that how a person sees Basketball is a reflection of their personality.

An addendum to my FU creed is that a Basketball fan's like/dislike of certain teams is also a reflection of how a person is. All 30 teams fall somewhere between "conventional" and "unconventional." This is along the parallel of my yin/yang series, as well as "Money" Mike Benjamin's "Form/Function" series over at Points Off Turnovers. Characteristics such as offensive tempo, play-calling, rosters, and the blurring of traditional positions are included in a team's mixture. And I, to the best of my ability, graphed them. Western Conference teams are on the left, and the East is on the Right. Peep the result and an explanation at the end of this sentence.
The first thing I think readers will notice about the graph is that the Lakers and Celtics are in the middle of Chaos and Structure. This doesn't mean they are "perfect" teams; but rather that they've achieved the most exact blend of those two ideals. The graph is also Conference exclusive. Eastern and Western Conference teams aren't necessarily compared to each other. For example, the Pacers are more conventional than the Bucks; but they're not necessarily as conventional as the Rockets with Yao. A third idea is that I'm not associating better teams with being closer to the center of the graph. As you can see, there are contenders scattered along the spectrum.

This is a graph about the teams as a whole. Each of them has at least one player opposite of its place in the spectrum. And your like/dislike of a player has no bearing on how you feel about a team. So you may like watching Deron Williams; but that doesn't mean you enjoy watching the Jazz. And allegiance to one's favorite team does not apply to this graph because that bias will distort your view. It's understood that some players—particularly the Elite ones—exponentially add interest to their respective teams through fans' appreciation of their work. I'm a huge fan of Chris Paul, yet I cannot stand watching the Hornets. In this graph, an individual player does not correlate to the overall enjoyment of watching the entire team.

The Rockets and the Sixers were given two spots on the graphs because they had drastic alterations to their team's chemical makeup. Both teams became more successful when they were forced to abandon structure and become more chaotic to survive. Thaddeus Young became the hybrid SF/PF that Philly needs to get out and run; and the Rockets just played on pure guts and let Aaron Brooks be Atom Ant. It was a bit of Adelman's smoke and mirrors, but Houston somehow won 2 games without Yao against the future NBA champs. As for the Sixers, that first-round series with the Magic was a lot closer because they had to be fast break-oriented. Andre Miller, now playing in the Rose City, was the reason the transition from structure to chaos was seamless. Elton Brand must adapt himself to the fast-paced Sixers and not the other way around. It makes them much more dangerous.

Where our individual personalities factor in on this graph is that it will point out the many facets we have as people. I'm infatuated with the pure ruthlessness of the anarchic Warriors as well as the Spurs mechanization through the Big Fundamental. Portland's young near-completeness and Oklahoma City's developing Revolution are both microcosms of my personality. That's the beauty of Basketball. Just when you think you've figured out everything about your self, you discover something new about who you are as both a person and a hoops fan. Find yourself through this art. I have and am continuing to do so with each passing season.



Peace.

Looking Back to Move Forward

The Association begins its 2008-2009 season tonight, with headliners such as Kobe, Lebron, and the Boston Three Party being featured in the nationally televised games.  It's Commissioner David Stern's strategic placement of his superstars along the TV schedule that inspired this piece, and it has nothing to do with basketball reality...for the most part...

If you're around my age and older, you have seen how basketball video games have evolved over the years and systems.  From Arch Rivals to Double Dribble to Bulls vs. Blazers to NBA Jam to NBA Live/2k, the evolution of hoops and the Shoot button have been remarkable.  I'd like to focus on one of my all-time video game characters, regardless of genre.  That is Roster Player.

For those of you that don't know, Roster Player is the created character on the NBA Live series that replaced His Airness once his name became bigger than virtual reality.  Due to licensing issues—in other words, due to Jordan being Jordan—SG #62 took the place of Michael Jordan on the NBA Live series until the 2002 edition, when Jordan was a member of the Wizards (at small forward).  While Jordan may have legally removed his likeness and name from the game, millions of players believed that His Airness was so great that even video games couldn't contain his godlike abilities.  To me and others I knew, Roster Player further added to Jordan's legacy; to the point that my freshman intramurals team at Pitt was called the "Roster Players."

But I have a few questions.  First, let's examine the Association's two most dominant players: Kobe and Lebron.  Even with their superhuman talents, are they so superior to the rest of the basketball world that they can remove their likenesses from basketball games?  Would Kobe and Lebron even do something like that?  Would NBA Live and NBA 2k game sales drop because the two brightest stars would instead be Lakers SG #27 and Cavaliers SF #21?

To me, I don't think there will be any player that will earn the same reverence that Jordan had to the point that he will be above video games.  For that reason, Michael Jordan will have unrivaled respect in my basketball eyes.  The way he was so far ahead of time both on and off the court was impeccable.  And while Lebron seems to have the same mentality, the fact that he isn't the first to do it will be a hinderance to him when his legacy can be justly compared to Jordan's.

So when you watch the games tonight, nod your head in respect to Michael Jordan.  And give another head nod for Roster Player.  In fact, watch this for a nostalgic remeberance of His Airness.

Peace.