My moms ex was in his mid-to-late 40s at the time. So the dude he was defending, who was at least 20 years younger, just kept blowing by him and dunking. And it was like... I don't even know how to explain it. Like half of mom's boyfriend's mind was there with us, and the other half was up at that great basketball court in the sky. It's like he really couldn't care too much because first of all, he couldn't practically do anything to defend dude anyway. And secondly, like fukit, it's just a basketball game anyway.
The NBA also a lot of the dudes that when they retire, like ain't really nothing wrong with their offensive game. The issue, especially as far as the greats go, usually is that they can no longer defend at a useful level. In some cases, if the legend scores enough points, his defensive deficiencies may not be particularly noticeable except to us gurus. Superstars usually aren't criticized for lack of defense unless they fall out of favor with the media. But this is athletics, and even if the opposing player isn't stronger or faster per se, it's like, as illustrated in the example with my mom's ex, with younger guys their bodies just react to their thoughts faster.
With most greats, guys like with Carmelo Anthony or Blake Griffin, you can look at them at a certain point and be like 'you've lost a couple of steps, and now the whole world can notice it. So maybe it's time to hit the bench or retire.' But shit is more complicated when you're dealing with a Lebron or a Steph or a Dame. I believe Melo or D-Wade, even if they were playing right now, can average 15ppg if their teams needed them to. But LBJ and Curry and Lillard are the types who can more or less score 40 points at will. In other words, as old and injury-ridden as they are, they're still by far the best scorers on their respective teams, and that'd likely be true no matter what squad you put them on. Say what you want about AD being the number one option and all that shit, which I've always agreed with, that the Lakers, as is their winning tradition, run through C. But he's not a better scorer than Lebron.
So it really is an unenviable situation, folks. You have the highest-scoring, most-popular dude on your squad, the one who sells tickets and jerseys yet who, if overplayed, can prove more of a liability towards winning than an asset. Scoring 30ppg and occasionally dropping game winners doesn't actually mean that the team is better with you in the starting lineup. But then at the same time, how can you not start one of the biggest players on the planet?
LEBRON JAMES
Since pulling off the Russell Westbrook trade and adding more quality depth, the Lakers are arguably better without Lebron than they are with him, which may not be saying much, but still. As I've been arguing pretty much all season, the issue is that Lebron can no longer play anywhere near quality defense. In order to rationalize having LBJ out there scoring 40pts and potentially winning games, you need to have all four of the other starters being above-average defenders to mitigate his defensive shortcomings. In other words, you would need three 3&Ds + AD.
This is not a diss since LBJ can at least brag that for a time there, he was one of the best defenders in the game. And it's watching Lebron play now, more than anybody, who reminds me of my mom's ex. It isn't that he's mentally refusing to play D. Rather, his body simply cannot react fast enough to keep up with opposing youngsters. It's like somewhere deep in his subconscious his brain is saying 'fuk if I chase these whippersnappers around. I done passed that point.'
So if you dig through this blog, you'll see that pretty much from the time LBJ went to the Lakers, or at least since he more or less forced the Ingram generation out, I have argued that this was a doomed experiment. The way I was envisioning things, Lebron was supposed to come in and lead/mentor the youngins into contendership, which would have only taken maybe 3-4 seasons, but that's too long for his timeline. Instead, after one season, he decided to go the instant championship route with AD - who has been dealing with injury issues his entire career - and they did get that one championship but probably aren't going to come anywhere close to winning another.
So I believe at this point, LBJ should be coming off the bench. I'm not saying that there's anybody on the Lakers' roster, with the exception of AD, who's even remotely better than him. But at Lebron's age, being unable/unwilling to play defense, it's better to just slot him into games when LAL needs a scoring or morality boost, and then take him out when exceptional defense is called for.
STEPH CURRY
Steph Curry, according to what I read online, recently beat the Bucks, the best team in the NBA, pretty much singlehandedly. His case is more complicated than Lebron's for three reasons. First, he's younger. Second, he led his team to a championship just last season. And third, he's been on the same team his entire career and has had the same coach for almost a decade, so benching him would be more of a sentimental affair than if you did so with LBJ.
I also just realized, amongst all of the shenanigans going on, that Andrew Wiggins hasn't been playing, which would help, in part, to explain the Warriors' slump. But as with Draymond, that doesn't really change my argument.
Last season, due to some unforeseen circumstances, Steph did come off a bench for a brief spell near it the end and into the First Round of the Playoffs, and was averaging like 30 points a game? That's something I never heard of even with the greatest sixth men, averaging 30pts off the bench. So one had an answer for that shit. So my argument was that since the Warriors were dominating for like the first time that season, Kerr should just leave him there and used to opportunity to pass the reign to Jordan Poole sooner rather than later. Instead they slotted Steph back into the starting lineup, and the he did go on to win Finals MVP. At the end of the day I did eat my words somehow, but it doesn't particularly look like lightning is going to strike twice, though with the Dubs especially you never know.
So the Steph situation is even more complicated than Lebron or Lillard. That's because neither LAL or POR has other players who could viably replace James or Damian as starters, but the Warriors do have someone who can start over Curry in Poole, giving the elder more rest and allowing him to come into games when most needed or when opposing teams are most vulnerable. But it looks like, if nothing else, Steph has earned the right with the Warriors to go to the bench when he decides to do so. And maybe, like Iverson, he'll eventually retire while skipping that experience altogether.
DAMIAN LILLARD
Unlike both Lebron and Steph, I believe that Lillard, given Portland's roster, should be starting. I also give the Blazers a lot of credit for putting a respectable roster around him this season on the fly, and I give Damian extra credit for showing up to play, while I was rather predicting that he was washed. But now it looks like they aren't making the playoffs, so his efforts, somehow, have been in vain (besides making the All-Star Game). And the sad thing about it is that Portland shot themselves in the foot really by obviously underestimating the impact of Josh Hart and trading him away for whatever reason they did so, just like they traded away CJ McCollum for whatever reason they did so. And it was also pretty tough luck that the Gauntlet couldn't play this season, because I really thought he would be a nice fit next to Lillard.
Sometimes, I do feel like Damian lingering around is hurting the development of younger players on the squad, but not really in a Steph Curry kinda way, because at least Anfernee Simons is starting alongside him. But the Blazers have sacrificed part of their future keeping a formidable roster around him. And there's another player that they should have moved on from a long time ago (instead of McCollum), but I guess no braintrust is perfect.
Also, Lillard's presence is a sorta like Lebron's in LA. If he doesn't play, then it's like the team loses 85% of its viewership appeal. And that's no disrespect to AD, but it's like the world is only now getting used to him regularly playing again.
Like Steph, Damian was never really a feared defender to begin with. But PGs are able to get away with being subpar defenders, even as they age (ala the Beard).
So Dame may be kicking that 'last loyal superstar' shit, an alltime great who refuses to demand a trade from the organization that drafted him, even though they're like never going to win a championship together. But at a certain point, that story starts getting old, and his dilemma becomes like what team would he go to anyway, since it isn't particularly easy to slot a PG in who's used to shooting at will. If it is an older squad, he can disrupt the established chemistry, and if it's a younger one, his chucking would impede on player development. But for some reason, I can picture Dame fitting in on the Bucks and finally getting the ring he deserves.
CONCLUSION
I thought this post would have some type of uniform theme, i.e. aged superstars being liabilities due to their defensive deficiencies, but now I realize it's more complicated than that and that each case, when it comes to these all-time greats, is different. But I guess what it boils down to is asking certain players, like those highlighted above, to come off the bench would be sorta like asking President Biden to let the VP Harris give the State of the Union instead of himself. Kamala would probably do a better job at it, and doing so may also be wiser in terms of prioritizing the future of the team versus the present. But then people would be like 'how can the President himself not give the State of the Union?' So it's not only a pride thing but also a popularity issue.
But that said, certain teams, at least imo, need to become bolder and more creative in addressing these types of issues, because if you do prioritize the reigning superstar over the up-and-comers, then you run the risk of ending up in an unenviable situation like the Lakers or what the Warriors have now become, i.e. a team with A list billing that can only consistently provide a C list showing.
No comments:
Post a Comment