Two Men, Under Gold

And then there were two.

Not now and next--but now and now. Not Gods and Titans, but Gods amongst themselves. And while Kevin Garnett's season-ending injury leaves the world of professional basketball under a note of considerable anti-climax, the second half of the season showed us the playoffs would be about 2 men and 2 teams alone.

Yes, after the 2008 Finals "we shall meet again" was clearly in the air. LA-Boston. The rivalry returns and continues. But a funny thing happened that summer in Beijing. And it didn't include Paul Peirce, or Ray Allen or Kevin Garnett.

2 men, under gold, indivisible until the basketball universe stood collectively below them. Conquered. One affirmation (Kobe) and one incarnation (Lebron) they returned to their country, and their cities with a new glow. With new powers. Kobe and LeBron had achieved SS.
From the all-world team, to the all-universe, all space time continuum team. That was the jump they made. Forget trusting teammates, playing better defense or getting mentally tougher. That all came without saying, it all came with the package.

Kobe Bryant and LeBron James came out of the gold medal winning Olympic performance as indubitably--the best players on the planet--and perhaps the 2 greatest in history. Their confidence galvanized, their sense of purpose singular and indefensible.

This is the collision course the National Basketball Association has been waiting for. A kind of epic we've never seen. The DaVinci of post-Jordan basketball at the tail of his prime looking still for his first, very own mountain top against a young gladiator so physically gifted and superior, he seems to represent a breed of man 10,000 years ahead of Darwin's curve.

Or so we can hope.

There are plenty of other interesting, less-obvious storylines in this version of the playoffs. And in a way I apologize for chosing the most obvious one to write about. But put that on ice for now, because sometimes these words; destiny...epic...greatest...sometimes they do mean something.

Like Hearst and Swearengen

So it boils down to this, in my mind.

The two most powerful forces in today's NBA: The iron will of Kevin Garnett and the Chamberlainesque power and domination of LeBron James. Yes, there are others. But none as them as pivotal and definitive of the 2007-2008 NBA season than these two.

For Garnett, his story of struggle is rooted in the consequence of failure. Year after year, with a poorly managed franchise, and hardly enough to take him where he wanted, the Minnesota Timberwolves failed to achieve what their transcendeary leader represented. And so he became a tragic hero, desperately loyal to an organization that could not return the favor, and a side note in an era dominated by Tim Duncan and Shaquille O'Neal. And truly, it was a tragedy, as evident in the level of pride that this uniquley American persona (so unique, it was practically un-American--a Japanese level of comittment to his franchise) demonstrated, game in, game out. He is by my account, the most noble athlete in the modern history of professional sports.

Then there is LeBron James. Witness, Wieden + Kennedy told us last year. This season as evidence, we certainly have. He is an athlete of unprecedented supremacy. A real life X-Men whose level physical domination is becoming matched by a killer instinct we have not seen before. His career, unlike Garnett's, is one of one achievement often surpassing iconic expectations. He is not a force of nature as Garnett is with his emotional domination of basketball will--but nature itself--unequivocally the most physically gifted player in the league today and perhaps ever. Never before has there been such a combination of size, strength, speed, quickness and agility.

And in this sense, LeBron and KG share something. Both entered as prototypes for generations to come. Uniquely skilled, and athletically gifted--they brought new context to what it meant to be a star in the National Basketball Association. But through the failures of Garnett's career in Minnesota, his awesomeness was hidden and buried.

But now, in the twilight of his prime--Garnett has made one final Herculean effort to achieve what his career has been missing. And to do so, he has united with 2 players whom have had similar destinies in the city where professional basketball was once religion. Garnett's intensity has provided leadership and a commitment to playing world-class defense that has made the Celtics one of the stories of this incredible season of NBA basketball.

So as every game in the Western Conference has turned into a do-or-die like situation, the powerhouses in the East wait patiently. Cleveland will not lose to Detroit in a 7-game series. Boston won't be beat by any team other than LeBrons. This is the central dynamic of the of NBA this season. Good thing we've got March Madness and the playoff race in the west to hold us off until then.

Wave-Particle Theory or Jedi-Sith?

As the brackets are officially out, and we count our collective (64) blessings as citizens of the greatest sports culture in human history, I felt this may be the time to ask the age old hoops question:

• Is the Duke, or North Carolina model for basketball success superior, inferior, or indifferent when implemented at the professional level?

It's long been my theory that there are fundamentally, two types of people and basketball players in this world: Duke people and North Carolina people. The former represents the individual who sees the harmony of organizational structures (societies, teams) as the ultimate gateway to success. The good of the whole, is far important than the good of the individual. The latter represents a significantly more individualistic model for success. The drive to become the greatest individual asset to the community is far and away the most important factor to team success.

Of course, these are pure Smith/Marxian paradigms that blend together in practical application, but the fundamental ideals can be found and extracted from all teams playing today. (If you still doubt this, realize that Coach K's system, and how well that system is executed--regardless of players--is the ultimate factor in success at Duke. At North Carolina, whether it's Dean Smith or Roy Williams, their greatness has always been defined by the greatness of their players.)

So here, I'll rephrase the original question: Duke or Carolina, which model works better at a professional level? Or does one work better than the other?

One main reason I bring this up, is to highlight the incredible 22-game (and counting) win streak by the Houston Rockets. With only one star player, Houston has managed to generate a team chemistry that is taking the league by storm. This is not to say that the Carolina model is void of chemistry. Chemistry, in basketball terms, is not a measure of selfishness, or selflessness --but the harmony that exists between either. In Houston's case however, the elevated play of role players in the absence of superstar Yao Ming, is more relevant than Tracy McGrady's individual success--as illustrated in Sunday's abysmal individual performance by McGrady.

The preservation of the system for success in Houston has become undeniably the single most important factor to every member of the team and the coaching staff, if for no other reason than pure necessity to stay alive in the grueling Western Conference with Yao out.

To contrast this model, the top team in the other conference are the Boston Celtics. Their success is of course, heavily reliant on the individual performances of their Big 3--Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. The chemistry, like in Houston is richly harmonious and the reason for having the best record in the NBA. But how that chemistry comes about, resides in achieving specific individual objectives for each player on the team.

The dichotomy between these two paradigms in practice can often seem invisible. What it really amounts to, is a difference in mental approach. Do you view the cog as the sum of its collective parts, or is the cog indistingushable from its collective parts?

The NBA has traditionally been a superstar-driven league. Championships are achieved by the Carolina model with a few notable exceptions (including Walton's Blazers, Sikma's Sonics and Billups' Pistons) no more evident than in Carolina Tarheel and flagship 20th century athlete, Michael Jeffery Jordan.

The college game on the other hand, due largely to a general lack of super-athleticism and size--is typically won by more collective, Duke-ian models for success. John Calipari's Memphis team, and the Jerry Tarkanian's UNLV Running Rebels of the early 90's are some exceptions.

For whatever reason, this is why I believe the college game appeals so much to middle-class, white Americans. While cultural norms promote high levels of ego (relative to almost every other culture in the world), middle-class whites love a certain level of Marxism in their sports. Though I will say, many people of all colors and creeds make it their business to rebel against the Duke model for their over-transparent embracing of this collectivism.

Currently though, as we enter a rennisance in the NBA the traditionally uber Carolina-powered philosophies in the league are meeting their foils in increasing numbers. Teams like Houston, Detroit, Utah, Portland and Dallas have implemented their variations of the Duke model, while the era's definative dynasty--the San Antonio Spurs--implement an almost perfectly 50/50 blend of the Carolina and Duke philosophies.

To me, it really stems down to whether you play the matchup game, or the system game (which I apologize for taking so damn long in getting to). Is the NBA a game of matchups, or is it something more?

Its my hypothesis that the matchup game is greatly overrated by the national media. Case in point, the San Antonio Spurs. On a given night, they have likely 1-3 winning individual matchups in Duncan, Ginobili and Parker. But realistically, its between 1 and 2 matchups, with Parker and Ginobili being variable depending on the opposing backcourt.

In one way the Spurs win on the Carolina model, as their success is so heavily predicated on the staple matchup they'll always win, in the great Tim Duncan. On the otherhand, what Duncan's matchup advantage means to the whole, and how it anchors a highly sophisticated and egalitarian system (both offensively and defensively) is a clear indicator of the Coach K model of success.

A big part of what's making the NBA so interesting this year is the overlap point in the Ven Diagram where so many different kinds of teams and players are existing and succeeding at the same time. This of course, includes the aforementioned Duke-Carolina binary.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure I have a definative answer to the question posed at the beginning of this post. And its funny because the Carolina model at the collegic level isn't truly realized until players hit their physical and mental basketball primes, which normally happens in the pros. Mismatches aren't taken advantage of at the college level, as they are in the pro game. But the true effects, and measurable implications of the matchup game, I still believe to be truly overrated. Weakside/help defense is far too sophisticated today, to let a pure Carolinan dominate all the way to a Larry O'Brien trophy.

Maybe there is no true answer, or maybe it all depends on personnel. That being said, the world is still waiting to hear from LeBron James and his career destiny.

The Economist's PHX v. GS

The talking heads have been calling Golden State the new Phoenix. High-velocity offenses, and buckets of points on the scoreboard are what they share ostensibly. Both attacks love to get shots up quickly, and utilize floor spacing to predicate their attack (forget Shaq for a moment). But as Thursday night’s game illustrated, a strong dichotomy exists between these two offensive juggernauts. One with laden with metaphors that run as deep as the binary between American and international socio-cultural paradigms.

Indeed, both teams love scoring points in bunches. But Mike Dantoni’s philosophy represents an international model for success, based on the collective sharing of resources (most significantly, Mr. Nash) where opportunities stem from the dynamic between players. It’s not that the model doesn’t foster the development of individual stars (Amare Stodamire’s development as a superstar is evidence), but the star is born inside an interconnectivity between the individual and the whole. Each player’s individual strengths and weaknesses facilitate the strengths and weaknesses of other players on the floor.

Golden State’s model echoes a predominantly American paradigm for success. The cultural emphasis on individuality reigns supreme in Don Nelson’s system, where the number one rule is quite literally, shoot. In a way, it’s the ultimate realization of 90’s era drive and kick basketball. Except in this case, there are 4 to 5 potential drivers/kickers on the floor at any given time—and the green light to shoot at any given point in a possession is taken to video-game extremes. You are the player you chose to become, and you are the only player capable of making that destiny occur.

At some level, it’s an example of pure, market-driven capitalism. In the Golden State economy, it’s in the best interest of the whole for the individual parts to think and act as if they were the most important element of the whole. Adam Smith realized.

To contrast that, the Phoenix economy is a carefully planned, balance between the individual and the whole. It has one central body (Steve Nash) who controls the flow of goods and services (the basketball) to the rest of the community. But to make a comparison to a Marxist state would be incorrect, with players like Mr. Stodamire being more significant contributors to the whole than other parts, a Boris Diaw for example. Phoenix represents a hybrid between pure market, and socialist ideals. It’s fitting for a team founded primarily on players from all around the world, including their coach who played professionally in Italy.

But can any of these archetypal realizations explain each team’s lack of legitimate title-contention?

In the case of Golden State, their defensive philosophy starkly contrasts their offensive one. It’s based on helping, hard double teams and quick defensive rotations to create turnovers; A strategically high-risk system, but one that is necessary against most teams in order to not get abused by mismatches. Ironically enough, they must play this way defensively because the choice they make offensively that makes them so potent at the other end of the floor. It’s almost as if Golden State’s defense is an extension of their offense. It exists, not to protect the rim or to prevent opponents from scoring, but to initiate their offense in the most efficient way possible.

In Phoenix’s case the addition of O’Neal makes them a considerably more traditional defensive squad. But with, or without Shaq on the floor Phoenix (because of their most potent offensive weapon, Steve Nash) must help and recover well in order to play competitive defense. In this sense, but Golden State and Phoenix’ fates are similar. The difference lies in the motive behind each defense.

Golden State uses defense to create turnovers and initiate their offense. Phoenix uses defense to control the tempo and establish a seamless symmetry between defense and offense —which can be either an advantage or problematic with the addition of on again and off again Shaquille O’Neal.

In the end, though—San Antonio’s mirrors Phoenix’s meta-basketball philosophy—and accomplishes it without the inherent risks Phoenix takes playing the game without a traditional interior presence. The addition of Shaquille O’Neal could help them defensively, but ironically, it only pushes the Suns closer to the Spurs from an X’s and O’s standpoint—a battle they would be hard-pressed to win in a best of 7 playoff series.

Golden State on the otherhand must rely on their ability to consistently score buckets at high percentages to even compete against the San Antonio’s, Utah’s and Las. At the defensive end, they’re helpless against teams who can efficiently move the ball around and can take care of the basketball. And to do that over the course of a 7 game series against some of the best defenses in the league is a daunting task.

Just ask Steve Nash.

Numero Otto

As Kobe Bryant & the Lakers rise to the top of the Western Conference, here's a commercial from the early part of his career. It highlights Kobe Bryant the cosmopolitan--or maybe, simply Kobe Bryant--the Italian.

The great sadness of Kobe's marketing maturation process is that his Italian-connection has been lost or over-looked. His Afro-centricity and his Jordan-appeal has overtook the reality that much of his youth was spent growing up in Italy, and had an influence on both his game and his image.

Here's an homage to Kobe--the old, youthful quasi-afro, Italian speaking #8.

World Perks

How the NBA can use existing infrastructures to improve the NBA and take it to the next level.


In recent times, it has become evident David Stern wants to go international and expand NBA franchises into Europe. It's a bold move for an American sports infrastructure that rarely ventures outside of its own borders--and when its does, only our Canadian neighbors get in on the action. But the NBA has made incredible strides since the early 80's to promote its sport and its league across the Ocean (or into Central and South America). Global initiatives at both capitalistic and humanitarian levels involving the Association have proven successful in globalizing the sport of basketball and the influx of foreign talent is proof.

David Stern wants a team in England. In Spain, in Italy, Greece and France. His vision is to concentrate all the greatest talent in the world into one league, and execute it at a geographically global level. Here's the problem with that.

1. Expansion thins talent. The NBA has already suffered a great deal from expansion throughout much of the Jordan and post-Jordan era, and is only now recovering. To further water-down the level of competition would an egregious mistake. The beauty of the NBA lies in the fact that it is the only truly global professional sports league that concentrates all the best talent in the world into a single league.
2. To create a viable basketball infrastructure overseas takes an extraordinary amount of capital. It's costly, and mildly risky at many different levels, including a regular season that would require multiple trips overseas.
   

That being said, I don't think Stern's vision is in the entirely wrong place. A great deal could be done for the game of basketball--for local economies, and the overall quality and entertainment value of the game by using existing infrastructures already in place to move the league in a positive direction without the risks of expansion.

To do this, Stern could learn a lot from the way soccer--the world's most popular sport-- is organized. Here's how the NBA could and in my opinion, should operate its global business.

• Establish day-to-day relationships with heads of the various Series A leagues across the world.
  
• Build an agreement to allow the fluid movement of players across leagues, most importantly between the NBA and other leagues around the world. This more than anything is a contractual agreement, setting terms for players'/owners' fiscal responsibilities when players move.
• Develop NBA International television made widely availible to common sports fans here in America to watch basketball abroad.

The benifits of establishing a formal business relationship with leagues around the world are clear:

• The NBA continues to expand its popularity without having to dilute the level of competition.
• A guarentee that the NBA has all the greatest players in the world--no hidden gems gone undiscovered.
• Basketball's popularity via media expansion allows fans in America to become interested in, and grow leagues overseas. The financial outcomes only improve local and global economies of scale.

The theoretical benefits of "soft-expansion" are pratically limitless. Being able to follow your favorite college players who weren't good enough to make it to the NBA. The ease of scouting internationally. An more competitve avenue for players to improve their game and their stock overseas. The solution is already there. It's up to the NBA to take it.

Obama-Mutombo 2008

Throughout his career, Dikembe Mutombo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo has excelled off the court as well as any player in the history of the National Basketball Association. In fact, ascribing the colloquialism of “off the court” to his significant contributions to the betterment of the human condition is like calling Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s skyhook an “on the court” achievement.

Mutombo has long been the NBA’s gregarious African ambassador, defined on the court by his mildly over mechanical basketball idiosyncrasies and his towering Congolese defense of the paint. And while Mutombo’s legacy in the game of basketball will likely be a defensive one (an unfortunate typecast—during the early to mid 90’s Dikembe was a highly productive offensive player) he is a progressive, proactive agent of change in his humanitarian/diplomatic efforts in the continent of Africa (mostly in his native DRC) and elsewhere both domestically and internationally.

He started the Dikembe Mutombo Foundation to aid the Democratic Republic of Congo. He funded the 1996 Zaire Women’s national basketball team in their trip to the Olympic Games in Atlanta...is a spokesperson for CARE and works under the United Nations development program. But Mutombo’s magnum opus is the Biamba Marie Mutombo hospital to which he has donated a total of $18 million of his own money towards the construction of the $29 million hospital in the DEC. The hospital opened in Feburary of 2007.

Additionally, Mutombo was a double major with degrees in Linguistics and Diplomacy from Georgetown University, one of the finest institutions of higher learning in the country and the world.

Mr. Mutombo's body of work is enough to fill even his giant 7'2" frame. Both on, and off the court. So as the Houston Rockets soar to incredible heights, and Mutombo is able to contribute to the Rockets' quest for an unthinkable playoff run without the great Yao Ming--remember, that Dikembe Mutombo's career is far from over. He has been a faithful steward to the human condition--a man that exemplifies excellence, kindness and the best humans can be.

After watching the series finale of a show, so real in its ability to capture the day-in, day-out struggle that plauges our American world, and that beyond--I can only hope, that the campaign that prides itself on hope, might actually deliver some of it. Even if it costs us a technical.