duncan228
10-15-2009, 01:55 PM
Don't Separate the Personality from the Player (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=tsn-dontseparatetheperso&prov=tsn&type=lgns)
SportingNews
Back in September, I wrote a surprisingly stodgy column on the future of Gilbert Arenas (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/36395/embarking_on_the_reinvention_of_agent_zero). Sparked by recent comments from Flip Saunders, I ended up wondering if we didn't just need a new Gil on the floor, but a new attitude to go with it. Distracted by DeShawn's new ink (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/36939/deshawn_stevensons_new_ink_a_national_treasure), I somehow missed when, days later, Arenas himself went down a similar path: "I'm not the entertainer anymore … When I was entertaining, all you guys focused on was my words. Now I'd rather you just focus on my basketball."
Thus far, Arenas has followed through on it, even going so far as to get a fine. And I guess whatever part of me wrote that other column—probably a longtime Gil fan tired of hoping for a return to form, and anxious about the inevitable pile-on—is happy with it. But as I watch the news coming out of Wizards camp, and monitor the Twitter accounts of other Wiz players, it becomes pretty clear to me that a dead-serious Gil would be totally out of place on this team. In large part, this is because he'd set the tone when he was healthy. If not their leader, he was such a strong personality that others couldn't help but be swayed by him. Gil may want to go straight, and Saunders may expect him to take the reins of the team. But the levity he brought to the team is a big part of their chemistry, their ability to work together. Take that away, and suddenly, ironically, a new, improved Gil could be detrimental to the team.
Granted, this is an extreme case. Arenas is the league's most well-documented eccentric, and the Wizards a team that unquestionably bore his stamp. His outspokenness, coupled with Washington's failure to win a playoff series and Gil's extended time on the shelf, made him an easy target. Yet there's no rule that every team has to approach the game like Kevin Garnett. Giving it your all and cracking a smile are not mutually exclusive. In fact, having fun is sometimes a hallmark of a team that's really comfortable on and off the floor. If the Wizards have a prayer of competing with Cleveland, Orlando and Boston, they'll need every conceivable asset they can muster.
The Wizards aren't the only team around the league who could stand to lighten up a little, or go with that particular flow despite the criticism of others. Take, for instance, the aforementioned Cavaliers. LeBron has been accused at various times of not being serious enough, of having too much fun, or—and this might be separate—of focusing too much on his corporate brand. Pairing him with Shaq, who has spent his entire career battling these accusations, and as a younger player supposedly wanted to do everything but excel on the court, might seem like a terrible idea. At least as far as appearances are concerned. But what's the point of having O'Neal around if you're not going to encourage the team to stay loose? Shaq will reinforce what's good about LeBron's attitude, not bring down the team by turning it into a stand-up act.
Dwight Howard is often compared to Shaq in his youth, right down to his love of clowning around and supposed lack of competitive fire. And Shaq's been able to rack up plenty of titles while only toning his behavior, and pursuits, down a little. Why is it that Howard's antics are an impediment to greatness? Presumably, the Magic would be perfectly happy if they were stuck with a player who closely followed O'Neal career trajectory.
At the bottom of the league's hierarchy, you've got the absolutely bonkers Golden State Warriors. They're every bit the soap opera that the Lakers were in the early 21st century, yet without the slightest hopes of a title. Given the team's utter dysfunction, and psychological pratfalls, shouldn't we just encourage Don Nelson to embrace the chaos he's created? Riding it out is certainly preferable to pretending there's order rising from the muck.
Early feminism asserted that "the personal is political." Bill Clinton once said he wanted to make the political personal. When it comes to basketball, both are true. No player's personality, especially those of stars, are separate from the way their teams are constituted. It's ludicrous to think you can put together a squad, with regard to interaction and functionality, and only view guys in terms of what they do. They do it in a certain way, and it depends on who they are. At the same time, almost every team has to have a personality. Sometimes, it's so grave we think they have none, as with the Celtics. Or, in the case of the Spurs, it's a professionalism that separates work from life. But for teams to really understand themselves, and make the most of what they've got, they—and we—need to recognize the value of embracing personality traits that might seem like "distractions." Within reason, of course.
SportingNews
Back in September, I wrote a surprisingly stodgy column on the future of Gilbert Arenas (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/36395/embarking_on_the_reinvention_of_agent_zero). Sparked by recent comments from Flip Saunders, I ended up wondering if we didn't just need a new Gil on the floor, but a new attitude to go with it. Distracted by DeShawn's new ink (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/36939/deshawn_stevensons_new_ink_a_national_treasure), I somehow missed when, days later, Arenas himself went down a similar path: "I'm not the entertainer anymore … When I was entertaining, all you guys focused on was my words. Now I'd rather you just focus on my basketball."
Thus far, Arenas has followed through on it, even going so far as to get a fine. And I guess whatever part of me wrote that other column—probably a longtime Gil fan tired of hoping for a return to form, and anxious about the inevitable pile-on—is happy with it. But as I watch the news coming out of Wizards camp, and monitor the Twitter accounts of other Wiz players, it becomes pretty clear to me that a dead-serious Gil would be totally out of place on this team. In large part, this is because he'd set the tone when he was healthy. If not their leader, he was such a strong personality that others couldn't help but be swayed by him. Gil may want to go straight, and Saunders may expect him to take the reins of the team. But the levity he brought to the team is a big part of their chemistry, their ability to work together. Take that away, and suddenly, ironically, a new, improved Gil could be detrimental to the team.
Granted, this is an extreme case. Arenas is the league's most well-documented eccentric, and the Wizards a team that unquestionably bore his stamp. His outspokenness, coupled with Washington's failure to win a playoff series and Gil's extended time on the shelf, made him an easy target. Yet there's no rule that every team has to approach the game like Kevin Garnett. Giving it your all and cracking a smile are not mutually exclusive. In fact, having fun is sometimes a hallmark of a team that's really comfortable on and off the floor. If the Wizards have a prayer of competing with Cleveland, Orlando and Boston, they'll need every conceivable asset they can muster.
The Wizards aren't the only team around the league who could stand to lighten up a little, or go with that particular flow despite the criticism of others. Take, for instance, the aforementioned Cavaliers. LeBron has been accused at various times of not being serious enough, of having too much fun, or—and this might be separate—of focusing too much on his corporate brand. Pairing him with Shaq, who has spent his entire career battling these accusations, and as a younger player supposedly wanted to do everything but excel on the court, might seem like a terrible idea. At least as far as appearances are concerned. But what's the point of having O'Neal around if you're not going to encourage the team to stay loose? Shaq will reinforce what's good about LeBron's attitude, not bring down the team by turning it into a stand-up act.
Dwight Howard is often compared to Shaq in his youth, right down to his love of clowning around and supposed lack of competitive fire. And Shaq's been able to rack up plenty of titles while only toning his behavior, and pursuits, down a little. Why is it that Howard's antics are an impediment to greatness? Presumably, the Magic would be perfectly happy if they were stuck with a player who closely followed O'Neal career trajectory.
At the bottom of the league's hierarchy, you've got the absolutely bonkers Golden State Warriors. They're every bit the soap opera that the Lakers were in the early 21st century, yet without the slightest hopes of a title. Given the team's utter dysfunction, and psychological pratfalls, shouldn't we just encourage Don Nelson to embrace the chaos he's created? Riding it out is certainly preferable to pretending there's order rising from the muck.
Early feminism asserted that "the personal is political." Bill Clinton once said he wanted to make the political personal. When it comes to basketball, both are true. No player's personality, especially those of stars, are separate from the way their teams are constituted. It's ludicrous to think you can put together a squad, with regard to interaction and functionality, and only view guys in terms of what they do. They do it in a certain way, and it depends on who they are. At the same time, almost every team has to have a personality. Sometimes, it's so grave we think they have none, as with the Celtics. Or, in the case of the Spurs, it's a professionalism that separates work from life. But for teams to really understand themselves, and make the most of what they've got, they—and we—need to recognize the value of embracing personality traits that might seem like "distractions." Within reason, of course.