jalbre6
11-16-2004, 11:51 AM
from http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/041116
Q: Who looks like the best team right now?
The Spurs. And not because of Duncan, or because Ginobili seems determined to have one of the best per-minute average seasons in recent memory, or because they have a bench with legitimate NBA guys who know what they're doing (Brent Barry, Devin Brown, Malik Rose, Big Shot Rob). With the exception of Barry, these guys have been playing together for awhile now -- and Barry has always been one of those Philip Seymour Hoffman types who can mesh with anyone else in the cast, regardless of the circumstances. They play well together. Much like the Pistons last year.
But this raises a larger issue: With so many teams dumping coaches, making panic trades and wasting money on shaky free agents -- it's like 80 percent of the league at this point -- the teams that keep building around the same nucleus (one bona fide star, four or five supporting stars, one coach) have an enormous competitive advantage over everyone else. It's almost like running a good TV show. Take "Cheers," for example. They built the first two seasons around Sam and Diane, with Coach, Carla, Norm and Cliff as the supporting characters. Eventually, they brought in Frasier for Season 3; Woody showed up after Coach died in Season 4. After Season 5, Diane left just as her character was getting stale, but Rebecca came in and invigorated the show.
Here's what you had in Season 1: Sam, Diane, Coach, Carla, Cliff, Norm.
Here's what you had in Season 6: Sam, Rebecca, Woody, Carla, Cliff, Norm, Frasier, Lilith.
You could make the case that "Cheers" went from "genuine show" to "straightforward sitcom" after Coach died -- in fact, I made that argument a few years ago. But the heart of the show never really changed. Which is how a basketball team should operate. When the subject of NBA problems comes up, everyone points to poor shooting, over-reliance on three-point line, overzealous defense, high schoolers ... to me, the lack of continuity is THE biggest problem in the sport right now. None of these teams knows how to play together for more than four-minute stretches. Of course a team like San Antonio will win 60 games. Why wouldn't they?
(Note: Comparing "Cheers" to the Spurs, Sam was obviously Tim Duncan and Diane was David Robinson, making Rasho Rebecca -- a great comparison because Rebecca couldn't hold Diane's jock, just like Rasho wasn't in Robinson's class. Coach was Avery Johnson, making Woody Tony Parker. Frasier was like the Ginobili addition -- right down to the "Making The Leap after a few seasons" part. Carla was Gregg Popovich, right down to the looks. Norm was the revolving crunch-time swingman, whether it was Sean Elliott, Stephen Jackson, or Barry this season. And Cliff was Bruce Bowen -- annoying and flawed, but necessary nonetheless. By the way, it took me about an hour to figure that all out ... and I'm not even sure why it just happened. Let's just move on.)
Q: Who looks like the best team right now?
The Spurs. And not because of Duncan, or because Ginobili seems determined to have one of the best per-minute average seasons in recent memory, or because they have a bench with legitimate NBA guys who know what they're doing (Brent Barry, Devin Brown, Malik Rose, Big Shot Rob). With the exception of Barry, these guys have been playing together for awhile now -- and Barry has always been one of those Philip Seymour Hoffman types who can mesh with anyone else in the cast, regardless of the circumstances. They play well together. Much like the Pistons last year.
But this raises a larger issue: With so many teams dumping coaches, making panic trades and wasting money on shaky free agents -- it's like 80 percent of the league at this point -- the teams that keep building around the same nucleus (one bona fide star, four or five supporting stars, one coach) have an enormous competitive advantage over everyone else. It's almost like running a good TV show. Take "Cheers," for example. They built the first two seasons around Sam and Diane, with Coach, Carla, Norm and Cliff as the supporting characters. Eventually, they brought in Frasier for Season 3; Woody showed up after Coach died in Season 4. After Season 5, Diane left just as her character was getting stale, but Rebecca came in and invigorated the show.
Here's what you had in Season 1: Sam, Diane, Coach, Carla, Cliff, Norm.
Here's what you had in Season 6: Sam, Rebecca, Woody, Carla, Cliff, Norm, Frasier, Lilith.
You could make the case that "Cheers" went from "genuine show" to "straightforward sitcom" after Coach died -- in fact, I made that argument a few years ago. But the heart of the show never really changed. Which is how a basketball team should operate. When the subject of NBA problems comes up, everyone points to poor shooting, over-reliance on three-point line, overzealous defense, high schoolers ... to me, the lack of continuity is THE biggest problem in the sport right now. None of these teams knows how to play together for more than four-minute stretches. Of course a team like San Antonio will win 60 games. Why wouldn't they?
(Note: Comparing "Cheers" to the Spurs, Sam was obviously Tim Duncan and Diane was David Robinson, making Rasho Rebecca -- a great comparison because Rebecca couldn't hold Diane's jock, just like Rasho wasn't in Robinson's class. Coach was Avery Johnson, making Woody Tony Parker. Frasier was like the Ginobili addition -- right down to the "Making The Leap after a few seasons" part. Carla was Gregg Popovich, right down to the looks. Norm was the revolving crunch-time swingman, whether it was Sean Elliott, Stephen Jackson, or Barry this season. And Cliff was Bruce Bowen -- annoying and flawed, but necessary nonetheless. By the way, it took me about an hour to figure that all out ... and I'm not even sure why it just happened. Let's just move on.)