The more things change, the more they stay the same. Nowadays, anyone in any part of the world can at least watch extended highlights from virtually every NBA game, including the preseason. But, oh sh*t, there's 30 teams, playing an 82-game regular season, not even counting the playoffs, i.e the part that really matters. So it's hard to be genuinely interested in more than just a handful of them.
Silver and co. may end up shooting themselves in the foot with all of this parity shit. For instance, let's take Jaylen Brown, place him on one team, put Lebron on another and then leave the remaining Sixers' more or less as it is. None of those teams would absolutely be must watch, unless they're winning a lot of games.
With fans now accustomed to watching Lebron and with Steph more or less falling off, there's really only one singular must-watch player, whether he's on a good team or not, and that's Wemby. Second on the list would probably be Ant-Man, when his team is actually winning. If they decide to defuse the league by making every big star play on a separate team, welcome to boredom city.
In some rare occasions there could be three or four absolutely must-watch guys playing simultaneously. But in athletics, age and injury can derail even the biggest stars. For instance, remember how must watch Ja Morant was a few seasons ago (even though his team won more games without him). And what about Vinsanity, the dunking machine who was for a time even more popular in basketball circles than Jordan? During the last 10+ seasons of his career, he was only able to produce one worthy highlight.
All of this is my roundabout way of saying that I have no intention of watching every preseason game. But I will once again monitor the standings and news, because they could be quite telling for the season to come. The preseason isn't as insignificant as it used to be, and there are a number of reasons why.
THE OFFSEASON HAS CHANGED
Back in the old days, the biggest offseason roster changes tended to be the acquisition of rookies, who rarely made a notable immediate impact. Or another way of looking at it is that it was only the worst teams who made headlines during the summer, because there wasn't as much of a reason to make major changes to the better ones.
Generally speaking, it's only garbage squads that get high draft picks. And it wasn't until around the turn of the century that frequent trades really became common.
And even when a star was traded, in the late 20th century, it rarely resulted in an instant contender, if at all. Take Chris Webber for instance. He was perennial allstar-ish who was traded what, like three times in less than a decade and only played on a contender during the last of those stops.
A superstar like Moses Malone going to the Sixers and them winning that same season is rare. Playing for the best team possible isn't cheating in and of itself; it's logic. I already covered that a few years back, when defending Durant.
SUPERSTARS NOW SWITCH TEAMS ALL THE TIME
One of the reasons we now see more player movement is because, oh shit, how long were the contract back in the days? Scottie Pippen signed for what, seven years? It was Jordan who I think started breaking that mold, after he retired the first time and came back.
So player movement isn't only about trades but also free agency. And now that guys are signing shorter contracts, sometimes even for a year or two, besides the divas who commonly demand trades, there tends to be a a number of superstars available every offseason.
WHY FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN?
I also think back in the old days, organizations had more grit. When we say the NBA used to be tougher, that isn't only about physicality or whatever. Generally, if organizations had a worthy roster, they would build on it gradually. There was more faith in player development, you know, dudes actually getting better over time, individually or collectively.
I'm not trying to make it sound all idyllic and shit. But I think it was just more of an understanding that things take time. And we don't even have to go that far back to see this, like look at Kobe for instance and how bad the Lakers were after Shaq left. No top-5 superstar these day would endure something like that.
It's Lebron who has firmly broken that mold. Remember how bad the Lakers also were during the last few years of Kobe's career? LBJ could never tolerate such a roster, even now in his elder seasons. But in his case, with all of the pressure or whatever, it's understandable. The bigger issue is the lesser dudes also adopting that same mentality.
So long as players want to win, even taking pay cuts to do so, it isn't likely that universal parity is going to be achieved, because generally speaking, you have to play with other stars to have a chance to win a championship. And as long as everyone is compatible, the more the merrier.
CONCLUSION
Did I digress? The conclusive point is that since so many stars and even impactful role players are changing teams annually, now the preseason matters, because at least half the rosters go through major offseason changes, even discounting the acquisition of rookies. There were a lot of exceptional rookies last season. But as you can see, in the grand scheme of things it didn't really mean shit for the teams they were on. Even Wemby when he first came in, you know what I'm saying?
The bigger offseason news these days is damn, how many superstars changed teams even this past summer? And how many other squads acquired players like, say, Kessler or Dort or Morant who'll likely be starting? So it's like every season, teams have to readjust and test new lineups, and that's why the preseason matters more. Dudes are no longer fielding like the same core rosters for four or five seasons straight.
This is something I came to appreciate in 2021, when the Lakers acquired Westbrook and lost every game that preseason. People just brushed it off like 'oh, these games don't matter. There's no way a roster with that much talent could lose'. But oh shit, those practices were in fact foretelling.
No comments:
Post a Comment