I don't know if this has ever been posted but I found it a very interesting article on the League and where it is headed.
In NBA caste system, it's good to be "untouchable"
by Dennis Hans / November 10, 2006
The NBA is rightfully proud of its missionary role in spreading the game of basketball to the four corners of the earth. But international influence can be a two-way street, and in recent years the NBA has absorbed and replicated, perhaps unwittingly, the worst excesses of one of the world’s worst systems: the caste system of India.
A league that once was an equal-opportunity meritocracy where every player, regardless of position, had a fair shot at greatness, now features a rules regime and style of play that grants privileges to perimeter players while rendering interior players – even Shaquille O’Neal – nothing more than dime-a-dozen, foul-plagued grunts.
In the dishearteningly resilient caste system of India, “Untouchables” are, in the words of a 1999 Human Rights Watch report, “the lowest of the low.” Numbering 160 million people – one sixth of the population – they’re “discriminated against, denied access to land, forced to work in degrading conditions, and routinely abused at the hands of the police and of higher-caste groups that enjoy the state's protection.”
In the caste system of the modern NBA, however, Untouchables are the highest of the high.
The NBA’s Untouchable caste came into being at the start of the 2004-05 season, when the league responded to the very real problem of excessive grabbing and holding by going too far in the other direction, making it a foul merely to touch offensive players on the perimeter. The rule change has dramatically increased the effectiveness and statistical output – not to mention market value – of a certain class of players to such an extent that historians are likely to place asterisks next to their scoring marks in each of their untouched seasons.
Thus, comparisons of such Untouchable greats of today as Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Gilbert Arenas and Allen Iverson with their hand-checked counterparts of yesteryear – e.g., Jerry West, George Gervin, Oscar Robertson, Paul Westphal, World B. Free and Michael Jordan — can be made by observation only. My eyes tell me that there are fabulous talents in every decade, including this one. Still, the wildly different playing conditions – including the absurd number of steps and hops after picking up the dribble the modern guys have been granted – invalidate statistical comparisons.
Another privileged NBA caste, the “Bonus Babies” (BBs), are awarded an extra point for most of their field goals – despite the fact that they only shoot when wide open and rarely are capable of creating a shot for themselves. Many BBs, including Steve Kerr, Damon Jones, Matt Bullard, Jason Kapono, Richie Frahm, Tim Legler and Kyle Korver, might never have played a minute of NBA ball in a non-caste league (though Korver is finally starting to develop the well-rounded arsenal he would have mastered in college if he hadn’t grown up in the stultifying trey era).
BBs have been around since 1979, when the NBA ins uted the three-point field goal. But they’ve taken a giant step up the caste ladder the past two seasons in conjunction with the Untouchables, who now have a much easier time “driving and kicking” – penetrating the no-touch defense, forcing other defenders to react, and then passing out to a rested and waiting BB for an easy three-point shot. That’s why today’s trey attempts are easier and more plentiful than in the pre-2004-05 period – and why so many of these fortunate, one-talent BBs are highly efficient (if not prolific) scorers.
UBB EQUALS MVP
The most privileged of the modern NBA players comprise a subset of the Untouchable caste: the UBBs, or Untouchables with Bonus-Baby range. Start with ball-handling brilliance and sports-car maneuverability in a touch-free environment, add oodles of bonus points from his own treys and those of his spotting-up BB teammates, and it’s easy to see why the value of a UBB has soared to the stratosphere.
The UBB formula transformed Steve Nash – an aging occasional All-Star and defensive liability – into a two-time MVP. It has made Chauncey Billups – who never made an All-Star team in the hand-check era though he probably should have been a reserve once or twice – a legitimate MVP candidate. It may well do the same in a season or two for Jameer Nelson.
But enough about the winners in David Stern’s unholy caste system. It’s time to look at the losers, the lowest of the low, the “Disposables.”
Disposables used to be called “centers,” as they were the center of attention in bygone days, the hub around which the offense revolved. Today, the duties of many (not all) Disposables are largely confined to setting picks, flopping, committing intentional fouls to prevent easy baskets and creating block/charge collisions. This results in an astronomical fouling rate and frequent games where they’re limited to 10-to-25 minutes. You can’t count on them for 30 minutes, let alone the 40 an Untouchable can easily log without foul-trouble worries. So a coach needs a few Disposables at his disposal.
FORTUNATE DISPOSABLES
The transformation of this position from center to blocking sled is actually a blessing for many Disposables, who otherwise would rarely get off the bench or might never have been invited to training camp. Some have physical tools but are skill-deficient and remain so year after year, thanks to incompetent or negligent coaches. Some have so-so coordination or are otherwise athletically limited. Yet you’ll often see them in starting lineups or as rotation regulars, mocking the once-valid boast that NBA hoopsters are “the greatest athletes in the world.”
Consider the Collins twins, Jason and Jarron. On offense, their job is to be run into. On defense, their job is to be run into – and act like that even when barely touched. They can’t make plays with the ball, though Jarron, at least, is a decent mid-range shooter when left alone. They are reasonably mobile as Disposables go, but they have so-so reflexes, are slow off their feet and barely elevate when they do jump. Consequently, they are poor rebounders and woeful shot blockers.
In a meritocratic, non-caste league the Collins twins would be lucky to make a team as the 15th man. In the modern NBA, they're effective players. The same bizarre system that over-rewards perimeter talent does the same for interior no-talents. Their myriad limitations are minimized because no-perimeter-touching allows an offense with a perimeter star to be effective with a stiff on the floor. Because the NBA rewards floppers and late-arriving help defenders with undeserved charging calls, grants six fouls to every player without regard to how few minutes he averages, and rarely imposes a harsher penalty for obvious intentional fouls (committed with great frequency by those without the ability to make a play on the ball) than for unintentional ones, a defensive stiff or trio of stiffs often can be just as effective as a quick, agile, crowd-pleasing swat-and-deflection machine.
So even though a Collins-style Disposable maintains a bottom-rung caste status as an unglamorous grunt, like the one-talent Bonus Baby he’s mighty fortunate to have an NBA job.
UNFORTUNATE DISPOSABLES
Another segment of the Disposable population is not so fortunate. It has never been more difficult for low-post players to put up numbers. Because of the way they and their defenders are coached, foul trouble is a constant for the likes of Shaq, Yao Ming, Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Eddy Curry. Thus, they don’t get enough court time to put up anywhere near the number of shots of the high-scoring Untouchables, and none of their un-fouled field goals are worth three points. They’re further hampered by zones and double-teams, and they both suffer and benefit in varying degrees from sumo-style low-post combat.
While Untouchables pile up 28-to-35 points-per-game seasons, Yao is the only Disposable who’s a good bet to average 20 in 2006-07.
As for Shaq, who even at 34 is by far the most gifted big man in the game, his rapid decline is a combination of poor coaching, the Untouchable takeover, worse-than-ever free-throw shooting and poetic justice. Let’s not forget that for several seasons he was the NBA’s premiere privileged character, allowed to dislodge defenders and camp in the three-seconds lane. He still has those privileges to a degree, but today he’s more likely to draw a foul for bulldozing or be victimized by a flop. His minutes plummeted to 30.6 per game last season because of those whistles as well as unnecessary fouls he committed on defense after Pat Riley turned him into “Shaq Doleac.” All the block/charge collisions the still-spry Shaq is foolishly creating means more fouls and pine time, and fewer points and rebounds. If the trend continues he’ll soon be saddled with this sad moniker: “The Disposable Diesel.”
As we’ve seen, the modern NBA dramatically under-values or over-values many of its players, depending on the whims of the league’s bigwigs. But is there any caste that is properly valued and for whom statistical comparisons with their forerunners are valid? Yes.
The Masters of the Midrange, men like Elton Brand and Kevin Garnett, eschew bonus points and special privileges. When Brand and Garnett venture into the low post, as they sometimes do, it’s as skilled artisans, not bulldozers. Brand is a power forward with a scoring style and repertoire that’s somewhat reminiscent of two elegant small forwards of the eighties, Bernard King and Alex English. All play or played a timeless, non-bruising style that needs no special treatment to be effective. Perhaps someday we’ll be able to say that about all NBA players.
Dennis Hans’s essays on basketball – including the styles, rhythms and fundamentals of free-throw shooting – have appeared online at the Sporting News, Slate and The Black World Today. His writings on other topics have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post and Miami Herald, among other outlets.
Thus, comparisons of such Untouchable greats of today as Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Gilbert Arenas and Allen Iverson with their hand-checked counterparts of yesteryear – e.g., Jerry West, George Gervin, Oscar Robertson, Paul Westphal, World B. Free and Michael JordanAnd that Tim Duncan guy...
No, explicitly not that Tim Duncan guy. That Tony Parker guy, on the other hand, is a perfect example.
I'm not fond of this bloated, nonsenical metaphor, though.
Are you trying to tell me that Tim Duncan is now a tradable commidity in San Antonio but Tony Parker is untouchable?
Untouchable in this article means that you can't touch them playing defense or a foul will be called.
Ahh, got ya. Read the article too fast...
I would put Duncan in the list with the "Disposables" group.
Let's face it, the leagues new rules Have/will limit Duncan's effectiveness. Teams are packing the lanes now. He's doing okay now but he's working too hard in the regular season. At this stage of his career to do that nightly in the NBA will take it's toll on him toward the end of the season.
The SPurs should be in the market for an "Untouchable" to play along with Duncan in the near future If they want to win another le.
I would put this article in the "disposables" group - it really is a piece of crap.
I disagree, I think this article is right on target. I am a long time NBA fan since the late 70's, and I have watched the game revolve. It's no secret that Cuban pushed for the no touch rule because his players (Nash) were not strong enough to deal with the stronger guards in the NBA. The game has changed for the worst. It is no longer a man's game. It is more of a duplicate of College and World league play. You don't have to guard anyone anymore and head to head Match ups are a thing of the past. The no touch rule is one of the weakest rules imaginable and it is hurting the league. I see a definite watering down in the NBA and like this article said, half the people in the league would have not been in the NBA before these changes.
Kevin Garnett in the post?
You're still short-sighted like the article is. There's a lot of guys who played in the league back in the day who could actually shoot and pass and run a fast break because they have fundamentals. Now, there's a lot of athletic, getting to the line when they make mistakes, impure players out there like Kobe who are superstars but couldn't be more than just the second best on their team 5 years ago. Additionally, no one receives more from the "no touch" rule than Dirk... not Nash - in fact, since I watch every Suns game, Nash gets held and body checked more than anyone else out there, but still puts up great numbers without getting to the line.
Defense was always meant to be played with your feet and not with your hands and you'll always see the best defenders have had quickness, anticipation, and fundamental defensive skills (such as getting good position and/or forcing a player to his weak hand) rather than just being able to grab hold of people. However, with the advent of the "once I get held I'm going to throw my hands in the air routine" that is typical of all perimeter players these days, then this "no touch" rule has become more of an issue.
If you watch games back in the 80s, players just dealt with people putting their hands on them and used their speed and superior skills and *gasp* passing the ball to get it in the bucket. It was in the 90s when players were allowed to impede the progress of the offensive player by not moving their feet at all and just holding onto the person that led to terrible offense, a lack of cohesion and boring-ass 70 pt games - and now the new hand-check rules. I don't like this extreme, where Dirk will scream and fly around if a player is near him, but I also don't like the other extreme where players make it in the league by having no skills besides being big enough to push another guy out of the way or hold craftily enough not to get a foul.
Everyone says this is no longer a game for the big men, but big men in today's game (like the Collins brothers) would not have survived against players like Russell and Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar and Cowens and Parish because those centers were as big as they were fast and agile. Russell would block countless shots without even putting a body on the offensive player by out jumping the person and timing the shot - he would then gather the rebound and start the Celtics' fast break. That is skillful team basketball - two other great centers of the 90s - Olajuwon and Robinson were quick, agile and could shoot a 15-ft jumpshot. The point is that today's game has become more about slapping at the ball and a player rather than playing straight-up hard defense and league has had to adjust and create rules that don't benefit just the defensive player and also discourage this type of behavior. Just like there are more hand-check calls than ever before - there are more charging violations than ever before and that's probably to help balance it out.
Shaq is really the only "bruising" big-man to win a championship in the last 25 years - Karl Malone couldn't do it and Ewing couldn't do it and Jordan never had a dominant big-man. This game has more or less gone back to its roots of movement without the ball and players that can simply shoot the basketball. Where the change comes is what the kids see when they are growing up. A long time ago, players idolized Kareem and Wilt and Russell and all wanted to be big men, so there was a long line of that type of player. Now, players of this generation (the Chris Paul generation) have grown up wanting to be playmakers like Magic and Jordan and so the shift is more towards the guards who can create off the dribble for themselves and other players.
However, I disagree with the comment that players like Steve Kerr can only survive in today's game because they can't create their own shots. Well, there have to be some players out there who can create their own shots, or else these good shooters wouldn't be getting wide open jumpshots to make a career in the NBA. Players like Iverson create places in the league for Korver, just like players like Cousy created places for players like Bill Sharman or players like Walt Frazier created places for players like Bill Bradley (yes, Senator Bill Bradley). Just because players like Mikan, Shaq, Wilt, and Kareem aren't creating places for good shooters by drawing double teams from the center position doesn't mean that quick point guards with good court vision can't drive into the lane and collapse the defense to create places for those same good shooters. I disagree with his comments because the one constant throughout the league has been players who can simply put the ball in the basket. Just because they put it in the basket when it was only two points from 23 feet away, doesn't mean those players were any more or less valuable than players who can do it today (ok, maybe they're worth one point).
You're still short-sighted like the article is. There's a lot of guys who played in the league back in the day who could actually shoot and pass and run a fast break because they have fundamentals. Now, there's a lot of athletic, getting to the line when they make mistakes, impure players out there like Kobe who are superstars but couldn't be more than just the second best on their team 5 years ago. Additionally, no one receives more from the "no touch" rule than Dirk... not Nash - in fact, since I watch every Suns game, Nash gets held and body checked more than anyone else out there, but still puts up great numbers without getting to the line.
There are also a lot of guys who played in the old days that could do nothing more than play defense, shoot and score around the basket. The game is made of role players, You have specific players to do specific tasks. Not very many players, now and then could do both. Using Kobe is a terrible example, he was second best to the best and most dominate player in the game at that time and there are no players that play the way he does. He's second to none! As far as Nash goes, I haven't seen much of him this season so I will not dispute that. The no touch definitely benefits Dirk, but handchecking was eliminated due to Cuban complaining that Nash would be physically abused by stronger guards, in this case it was Billips that fueled Mark's fire.
Defense was always meant to be played with your feet and not with your hands and you'll always see the best defenders have had quickness, anticipation, and fundamental defensive skills (such as getting good position and/or forcing a player to his weak hand) rather than just being able to grab hold of people. However, with the advent of the "once I get held I'm going to throw my hands in the air routine" that is typical of all perimeter players these days, then this "no touch" rule has become more of an issue.
If you watch games back in the 80s, players just dealt with people putting their hands on them and used their speed and superior skills and *gasp* passing the ball to get it in the bucket. It was in the 90s when players were allowed to impede the progress of the offensive player by not moving their feet at all and just holding onto the person that led to terrible offense, a lack of cohesion and boring-ass 70 pt games - and now the new hand-check rules. I don't like this extreme, where Dirk will scream and fly around if a player is near him, but I also don't like the other extreme where players make it in the league by having no skills besides being big enough to push another guy out of the way or hold craftily enough not to get a foul.
But to some, a player that can not create his own shot, look comical when attempting to take someone off the dribble, get abused on defense because they do not play it and can not shoot with someone on them, fundamentally sound? This has always been Laughable to me. I would much rather see a player like Rodman, who couldn't shoot a lick than what we see in the NBA today.
There will always be players who try to get away with a hold here and there. The NBA has always been that way and always will be that way. I remember Magic used to impede the progress on a defender on a fast break. He would grab the defender in the middle on a 3 on 2 fastbreak and stop him from making a play on the wing. Like most, if you get away with it, you'll try it. That still goes on today and will as long as Humans play the game.
However, I disagree with the comment that players like Steve Kerr
It sounds like you agree with most of this article except for Players like Steve Kerr not being able to play in the NBA. I do think Kerr could have played in the league anyway. He shot the jumper very well but How about this, take away the 3 point shot and tell me how much time if any, Steve Kerr would have got with the Bulls and the Spurs back then?
No, I think Steve Kerr should make it in the league, simply because he can shoot - he may not have been as effective or valuable without a three point shot and I agree that players like Rodman are great for the game - but he's the other extreme: a player that can't shoot at all! Kerr is just as good as Rodman and that's why they won a championship together, but I hate that this article simply called out the three point shooter rather than the Rodman type of player (the Collins bros. are nowhere near Rodman's talent, insanity, or nose for the ball). Still, Steve Kerr won Jordan's 5th championship on a 2-pointer from the FT line against the Jazz on a pass from Jordan, so I think that a player who can simply shoot the ball from anywhere on the court is a great mesh with a player like Rodman (and Ben Wallace to the point where Rodman never would have let little rules influence his play on the court which is what the $60 million crybaby has done this year... Rodman would never record a game with zero rebounds making that kind of cash).
The 80s were boring as .
Umm, have you followed Rodman's career post-chicago? Yeah, he played after 1998. Not only did he let 'little rules', like wearing shoes in the locker room, affect him, he got worse than recording 0 rebounds: he got DNPs...
Get off your high holy horse, and stop being a historical revisionist...
And you know something RonMexico, both Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman were such awesome players, defenders that could literally put the otherwise mediocre teams into true championship contention, and they ALWAYS PLAYED HARD, even with their shenanigans, I would have let every single one of those little stupid rules slide, because no matter what yous say, when either of those 2 were/are on the floor, your team has a shot to win.
Kobe for MVP.
Hmm, Steve Kerr was just as good as Dennis Rodman??? Let's take a look, Kerr 15 NBA seasons, Rodman 14 NBA seasons. I must say I was surprised to see that Rodman's PPG was higher than Kerr's. Judging by this, i would say that Rodman was more Fundamentally sound than Kerr. He was effective on both ends of the court, Where as Kerr was one dimensional.
Kerr - Rodman
MPG - 17.8 - 31.7
PPG - 6.0 - 7.3
FG% - .479 - .521
3pt% - .370 - .231
RBG - 1.2 - 13.1
APG - 1.8 - 1.8
Steals - 476 - 611
Blocks - 46 - 531
There was just offense, nobody played defense then. You watched the game and it was like you are watching the All-star game.
I thought this was a joke but I see now that it is not. In the 80's you had two conferences that played two totally different games. The east played the hard nose defense, and the West was dominately all offense. When the two conferences met in the finals, it was a great clash of champions.There was just offense, nobody played defense then. You watched the game and it was like you are watching the All-star game.
I agree. The great Laker teams of the 80's played good defense when they had to though (in playoffs) but it was over-shadowed by their "showtime" offense.
IMO there are only a couple of untouchables, Wade, Lebron. Then there are almost untouchables, then stars, then everyone alse. a 4 caste system
When Rodman plays almost double the minutes Kerr does, then of course his PPG should be higher (show me some per 48 stats or something) - but Rodman's not as one-dimensional as Ben Wallace. My point was that a player like Rodman is as valuable as a player like Kerr because they've both won multiple championships with their differing styles of play. (My main point is that a player like Ben Wallace is not an "instant champion" like his new contract and summer of media accolades would make you think.) But Kerr has won Pac-10 championships in college, NBA Championships with the Bulls and Spurs (and he's hit big shots for both of those teams in the playoffs).
Since you obviously love the all-defense 90s, I think it's just as important to have a guy who can hit an open shot in the playoffs because the tensions are higher and the defense is more intense... just like it's valuable to have a guy who can play defense and rebound the incredible amount of missed shots in that era (Rodman).
That Pistons fan whose name I forget tried to say that Rodman started getting mad about the rules - but he'd already accomplished a lot more for 3 different teams than Ben Wallace has and Rodman was eventually going to go off the deep end. I mean, he got married in a dress, while Ben Wallace was supposed to be this "stoic, hardworking, against all odds" wonderful teammate, when it's obvious he's taken that $60 million contract to mean he can do whatever he wants.
I'm not trying to revise history (like Bill Simmons when he says that no one has allowed as many points to be scored as in this NBA era - while he forgets that his beloved Celtics would give up 115 ppg to the Lakers in the Finals all the time) - but I'm trying to point out that yes, the West was a place where every tried to run and gun and the East (with the Pistons "Bad Boys") was a little more physical and defensive-minded. Then the mid-90s came around and I fell asleep from the complete lack of offensive ability from every team in the league, culminating with a champion like the 2004 Pistons. But the Pistons still needed a guy who could hit big shots (Chauncey/Tayshaun), and while those two are multi-dimensional, Robert Horry (who is farily one-dimensional) single-handedly beat them in Game 5 the next year with his ability to... shoot! That is all.
When Rodman plays almost double the minutes Kerr does, then of course his PPG should be higher (show me some per 48 stats or something)
It wont change anything. Rodman was fundamental sound and Kerr was not. (
Rodman Led the NBA in rebounding (15.0 rpg) in 1997-98 for a record seventh consecutive season, Shares the NBA Finals record with 11 offensive rebounds in a game, achieving the feat twice during the 1996 NBA Finals Named NBA Defensive Player of the Year in 1989-90 and 1990-91, Named to the NBA All-Defensive First Team seven times (1988-89 to 1992-93, 1994-95, 1995-96) and to the NBA All-Defensive Second Team in 1993-94, Named to the All-NBA Third Team in 1991-92 and 1994-95, Led the NBA in field-goal percentage (.595) in 1988-89
Kerr's accomplishments? Named to the NBA All-Interview Second Team in both 1997-98 and 1998-99
Robert Horry (who is farily one-dimensional) single-handedly beat them in Game 5 the next year with his ability to... shoot! That is all
Robert Horry was not one dimensional!
A 20 footer and a 2 footer still amounts to 2 points. The name of the game is to get the ball thru the basket, doesn't matter how you do it. Percentages are better the closer you are to the basket. If the league really wants more jumpshooters they need to give them more points for 20 footers
Nash shoots over 50% from the field and is shooting 48% from 3 this year, and he shoots a majority of midrange to long range jumpshots (in fact, his close shooting % has been poor this year). Horry will often shoot better from long range in the playoffs than mid or close range and Steve Kerr could hit from everywhere on the court. In fact, the NBA gives an extra point for baskets 23 feet and 9 inches from the basket, and Rodman couldn't shoot FTs to save his life, in case you forgot that - I guess since you like streetball more than anything else, good FT shooting isn't important.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
