alamo50
04-20-2005, 09:46 AM
Without Lakers and Kobe, postseason lacking drama
COMMENTARY
By Michael Ventre
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 8:10 p.m. ET April 19, 2005
The essence of drama is conflict. But the reverse isn’t necessarily true. Just because you have conflict doesn’t mean it will produce drama.
Take a look at some of these TV news shows where they pit two rabidly argumentative losers against each other in an effort to create drama. They usually succeed in producing lots of frantic hand gestures and angry spittle. But drama? There’s more drama when they put up dry wall on “This Old House.”
Unfortunately, this year what we’re looking at in the NBA playoffs is two angry losers putting up dry wall.
Just because the NBA puts 16 teams into conflict to determine a champion doesn’t necessarily mean drama will ensue. In order for that to happen, fans have to care enough about the participants.
This year, the ingredients that produce great drama just aren’t there.
In recent seasons — and in 2003-04 especially — the NBA had the Lakers, one of the preeminent love-‘em-or-hate-‘em clubs in all of sports. But this year the Lakers finished worse than the Clippers, which means their drama — if you want to call waiting for a ping-pong ball in Secaucus, N.J. drama — will occur off the basketball court.
Talk about drama queens. Last year the Lakers had Shaquille O’Neal feuding with Kobe Bryant, Phil Jackson feuding with Kobe, Kobe feuding with his alleged accuser and the state of Colorado, Gary Payton feuding with Phil over his role with the team, Karl Malone feuding with his doctors, and Shaq feuding with owner Jerry Buss over a contract extension.
All of that would belong in the roundball round file except for the fact that the Lakers’ overabundance of star players created a magnet. Teams wanted to beat them badly, and fans wanted to see it. Other fans, of course, rooted hard for the Lakers. So each playoff series involving those marquee names against determined challengers — first Houston, then San Antonio, then Minnesota and finally Detroit — produced high drama because of the possibility that the mighty might fall.
There is no “mighty” this year.
Not only are the Lakers in the dumper, but so are the Timberwolves. The combination of superstar Kevin Garnett and gunslingers like Latrell Sprewell and Sam Cassell made for must-see TV, at least in a basketball context. They didn’t offer the same love-hate dynamic of the Lakers, but they were polarizing nonetheless.
Because of ego, greed and laziness, the NBA was denied another set of high-profile antagonists when the T-Wolves failed to make the playoffs after reaching the Western Conference finals last year.
The absence of the Lakers and Timberwolves reminds us of what we’ll be missing in the drama department.
So what’s left? What is it that we do have?
The Phoenix Suns have the best record in the NBA. They’re loads of fun to watch, but outside the NBA cognoscenti they’re relatively nondescript. Steve Nash, Amare Stoudamire and Shawn Marion are splendid players. Yet they haven’t built up any real rivalries with anybody else in the league. They’re a power on the rise. It will take time for them to get to the point where they can not only produce victories and great basketball, but drama as well.
The same holds true for the San Antonio Spurs. Even when they had a spirited rivalry with the Lakers, the drama usually came because they were playing against the Lakers. For evidence, look at their coma-inducing Finals matchup in 2003 against the New Jersey Nets. There are fans across the globe who still haven’t awakened from that one.
Among the rest in the West, there are stars to be sure. Players of interest. Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming will be worth watching in Houston. George Karl’s Nuggets, with Carmelo Anthony and Kenyon Martin, are a fascinating case study.
The level of interest, however, does not rise to the level of the old Celtics-Sixers battles of the early ‘80s, or the Celtics-Lakers of the ‘80s, or the Lakers-Kings of a few seasons ago. Commissioner David Stern once remarked that the ideal Finals would be the Lakers against the Lakers. He understands that drama creates ratings, which creates revenue.
In the East, there could conceivably be some drama in the offing, especially if the expected scenario plays out and the Shaq-led Miami Heat meets the defending-champion Detroit Pistons in the conference finals. The Heat and Pistons haven’t created the kind of rivalry yet that the Pat Riley-coached Knicks had with Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. But the possibility exists. This is a new adversarial relationship in the making. It likely will take a little time to blossom into a full-blown hate-fest.
But in the rest of the East, the drama pickings are slim, simply because there are so many teams unknown to those beyond the NBA’s hard-core fan base. Do you think casual fans will flock to their TVs to make sure they don’t miss the fireworks when Gilbert Arenas and the Wizards meet the Baby Bulls? Will the Celtics and Pacers make the Patriots-Colts rivalry seem like a wine and cheese party? Doubtful. Very doubtful.
The playoffs will still be of interest to many. Good, entertaining basketball will be played. Many games will come down to the wire. Certain individuals will create fireworks and put up staggering numbers.
But without fierce rivalries, without bigger-than-life personalities that transcend basketball, without major markets like Los Angeles and New York involved, the potential for drama disappears.
Of course, there is always hope. Maybe the Detroit Pistons will begin fighting among themselves.
Michael Ventre is a frequent contributor to NBCSports.com and a free-lance writer based in Los Angeles.
COMMENTARY
By Michael Ventre
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 8:10 p.m. ET April 19, 2005
The essence of drama is conflict. But the reverse isn’t necessarily true. Just because you have conflict doesn’t mean it will produce drama.
Take a look at some of these TV news shows where they pit two rabidly argumentative losers against each other in an effort to create drama. They usually succeed in producing lots of frantic hand gestures and angry spittle. But drama? There’s more drama when they put up dry wall on “This Old House.”
Unfortunately, this year what we’re looking at in the NBA playoffs is two angry losers putting up dry wall.
Just because the NBA puts 16 teams into conflict to determine a champion doesn’t necessarily mean drama will ensue. In order for that to happen, fans have to care enough about the participants.
This year, the ingredients that produce great drama just aren’t there.
In recent seasons — and in 2003-04 especially — the NBA had the Lakers, one of the preeminent love-‘em-or-hate-‘em clubs in all of sports. But this year the Lakers finished worse than the Clippers, which means their drama — if you want to call waiting for a ping-pong ball in Secaucus, N.J. drama — will occur off the basketball court.
Talk about drama queens. Last year the Lakers had Shaquille O’Neal feuding with Kobe Bryant, Phil Jackson feuding with Kobe, Kobe feuding with his alleged accuser and the state of Colorado, Gary Payton feuding with Phil over his role with the team, Karl Malone feuding with his doctors, and Shaq feuding with owner Jerry Buss over a contract extension.
All of that would belong in the roundball round file except for the fact that the Lakers’ overabundance of star players created a magnet. Teams wanted to beat them badly, and fans wanted to see it. Other fans, of course, rooted hard for the Lakers. So each playoff series involving those marquee names against determined challengers — first Houston, then San Antonio, then Minnesota and finally Detroit — produced high drama because of the possibility that the mighty might fall.
There is no “mighty” this year.
Not only are the Lakers in the dumper, but so are the Timberwolves. The combination of superstar Kevin Garnett and gunslingers like Latrell Sprewell and Sam Cassell made for must-see TV, at least in a basketball context. They didn’t offer the same love-hate dynamic of the Lakers, but they were polarizing nonetheless.
Because of ego, greed and laziness, the NBA was denied another set of high-profile antagonists when the T-Wolves failed to make the playoffs after reaching the Western Conference finals last year.
The absence of the Lakers and Timberwolves reminds us of what we’ll be missing in the drama department.
So what’s left? What is it that we do have?
The Phoenix Suns have the best record in the NBA. They’re loads of fun to watch, but outside the NBA cognoscenti they’re relatively nondescript. Steve Nash, Amare Stoudamire and Shawn Marion are splendid players. Yet they haven’t built up any real rivalries with anybody else in the league. They’re a power on the rise. It will take time for them to get to the point where they can not only produce victories and great basketball, but drama as well.
The same holds true for the San Antonio Spurs. Even when they had a spirited rivalry with the Lakers, the drama usually came because they were playing against the Lakers. For evidence, look at their coma-inducing Finals matchup in 2003 against the New Jersey Nets. There are fans across the globe who still haven’t awakened from that one.
Among the rest in the West, there are stars to be sure. Players of interest. Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming will be worth watching in Houston. George Karl’s Nuggets, with Carmelo Anthony and Kenyon Martin, are a fascinating case study.
The level of interest, however, does not rise to the level of the old Celtics-Sixers battles of the early ‘80s, or the Celtics-Lakers of the ‘80s, or the Lakers-Kings of a few seasons ago. Commissioner David Stern once remarked that the ideal Finals would be the Lakers against the Lakers. He understands that drama creates ratings, which creates revenue.
In the East, there could conceivably be some drama in the offing, especially if the expected scenario plays out and the Shaq-led Miami Heat meets the defending-champion Detroit Pistons in the conference finals. The Heat and Pistons haven’t created the kind of rivalry yet that the Pat Riley-coached Knicks had with Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. But the possibility exists. This is a new adversarial relationship in the making. It likely will take a little time to blossom into a full-blown hate-fest.
But in the rest of the East, the drama pickings are slim, simply because there are so many teams unknown to those beyond the NBA’s hard-core fan base. Do you think casual fans will flock to their TVs to make sure they don’t miss the fireworks when Gilbert Arenas and the Wizards meet the Baby Bulls? Will the Celtics and Pacers make the Patriots-Colts rivalry seem like a wine and cheese party? Doubtful. Very doubtful.
The playoffs will still be of interest to many. Good, entertaining basketball will be played. Many games will come down to the wire. Certain individuals will create fireworks and put up staggering numbers.
But without fierce rivalries, without bigger-than-life personalities that transcend basketball, without major markets like Los Angeles and New York involved, the potential for drama disappears.
Of course, there is always hope. Maybe the Detroit Pistons will begin fighting among themselves.
Michael Ventre is a frequent contributor to NBCSports.com and a free-lance writer based in Los Angeles.