6.14.00
Why Blast the NBA?

6.14.00
Al Gore, Slumlord

6.14.00
Packing the Peace

6.13.00
Convention Chair Gets Schooled

6.13.00
No Con-Census For Domestic Violence

6.13.00
Losing the Peace on English in the Schools

6.12.00
Weird Week for Puerto Rico

6.12.00
A MacNelly Appreciation

6.12.00
Just One Factor

6.12.00
Not So Hot News

6.09.00
Coffin Up a Victory

6.08.00
Greenspan vs. The Economy

6.08.00
Greed vs. The Economy

6.08.00
City of Confused Angels

6.07.00
Corzine Looks Good, But…

6.07.00
Gore's Scary Internet Plans

6.06.00
Hillary at the U.N.

6/14/00 4:05 p.m.
Why Blast the NBA?
Easterbrook tries to puncture the round ball.

By Kevin Holtsberry

he NBA can't catch a break, it seems. Just as the slumping league begins to regain some excitement — due largely to a nail-biter Western Conference final series — one critic decides to kick 'em when they're down. Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor at The New Republic, has launched a mini-tirade against the struggling NBA in the cyber-pages of Slate. Easterbrook criticizes everything in the NBA from lack of real play calling to its selfish, egotistical, and undisciplined players. To add insult to injury, he follows up his critique with an attack on Larry Bird.

Normally I would welcome a fresh look at the admittedly troubled NBA, but Easterbrook's rants are filled with overblown and clichéd nostalgia. A couple of examples prove this.

Easterbrook Claim:
The NBA has regressed to crybabies earning millions of dollars playing "street ball."

On the face of it this seems like a legitimate, if common, complaint. In reality, what Easterbrook's complaint boils down to is "Why can't the NBA be like the NCAA?" I wish I had a nickel for every time some sports fanatic bemoaned the selfish play in the NBA and praised college basketball as the Holy Grail of sport. Favoring college basketball over the NBA is now the equivalent of stating you liked R.E.M. before they were popular. The underlying reason people watch the NBA (or any professional sport, for that matter) is superior athleticism. People want to see athletes do things the viewers could never imagine doing, in pressurized situations. If you want precision play and complex strategy, watch Ivy League basketball. Even the Utah Jazz, arguably the most "play" orientated team in the NBA, ultimately wins or loses on the athletic ability of its superstars, John Stockton and Karl Malone. Utah fans wouldn't want it any other way.

The key to winning on the professional level is taking advantage of your strength, and of your opponents' weaknesses. In the NBA finals, all of the players on the court are remarkably athletic and skilled in at least some facet of the game. The excitement comes not from chess-like battle over complex strategy, but from the sheer competition, i.e., which talented athlete will tip the balance? The Indiana Pacers lost games one and two of the finals because their superstars (Reggie Miller, Rick Smits, Jalen Rose) did not produce — not because Larry Bird was a bad coach (see below) or because they did not run the right plays. The Lakers, on the other hand, won because their stars did produce, especially Ron Harper and Glen Rice (elevated to star status because of the injury to Kobe Bryant, they scored a combined 42 points).

Easterbrook Claim:
Larry Bird, while a great player, is a bad coach.

Not satisfied with a critique of the NBA, Easterbrook moved on to criticize one of the league's more popular coaches. Easterbrook's criticisms can be broken down into three areas: 1) Bird's Pacers are disorganized; 2) Bird makes bad game decisions; and 3) Bird lacks the motivation to see the NBA improve.

Easterbrook criticizes Bird for failing to get the Pacers organized, especially in the first two games of the finals. This is hyperbole: I would like to hear from a coach whose players don't regularly ignore his advice. Phil Jackson, Zen master and the dominant coach of the past decade, has the same problem and it almost cost his team a chance at the championship. (The Lakers coach does not escape criticism: Easterbrook castigates Jackson's vaunted triangle offense as mere child's play) Just because Bird admitted his frustration to the media doesn't make him a bad coach.

It is also easy to criticize a team for being disorganized when they are struggling on offense. The most cursory observer would likely have noticed that the Pacers were out of sync in the first two games of the finals. For the Pacers this was the biggest series of their lives; perhaps the pressure got to them. Whatever the reason, Reggie Miller's shooting was abysmal and Shaq was making mincemeat of the Dunkin' Dutchman Rick Smits. Is it all that surprising that the Pacers offense broke down?

While Bird certainly made some decisions in the finals that are open to question (keeping Mark Jackson on the bench in the fourth quarter, not taking advantage of Shaq's foul trouble, etc.), the Pacers were in a position to win both games had Reggie Miller been playing up to his normal level. If Reggie had made half of his attempted shots in game one instead of shooting a dismal 1 for 16, it would have made a huge difference. Similarly, in game two, Reggie was non-existent in the fourth quarter, which allowed the Lakers to eke out a win without Kobe Bryant. The larger point that Easterbrook misses is that the players, not the coaches, win the games. The coach's job is to get the players ready and in a position to win — and Bird has done this.

To cap off his attack on Bird, Easterbrook slyly questions Bird's motivation in bringing about a more professional and more organized NBA. Easterbrook asserts that since Bird, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and others are part of the glory days of the NBA, they are less than motivated in helping the young players rise above their elders' reputations. This is just plain bunk. The demise of the NBA only hurts the game that Bird et al cherish. To claim that Bird would give up on his players in order to selfishly protect his own historic reputation is insulting. One needs only to see Bird's development of Jalen Rose (NBA most improved player) to know this is patently false.

Easterbrook's longing for a return to a golden age where gentlemen athletes run precision plays and coaches control the game is simple utopian nostalgia dressed up as criticism. While the NBA (and all professional sports) have their problems, anarchy is not one of them.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home