LeBron James Called Out For Ignorance

[Erick Blasco]

 

 

Here's how I remember the NBA in the 1980s: It took lots of imagination to be a fan. That's because there were only three elite teams most of the decade and for much of the country and for most of the season, there was only one game broadcast per week. So you saw various combinations of the Lakers, Celtics and 76ers playing each other again and again. I became a fan of players like Bernard King, Alex English and Adrian Dantley because of Statis-Pro Basketball, The Sporting News and Topps basketball cards, which were promptly discontinued for several painful years--because of a lack of sales. As for there being all these big-event games with star-studded teams drawing national interest throughout season, as LeBron James suggested last night ... I don't remember it that way at all.

 

As a sports fan, LeBron James is an unabashed front runner. Though he's from Ohio, a state with two baseball teams steeped in tradition and history (not all of it good), he roots for the New York Yankees. In football, he is a huge fan of the Dallas Cowboys. Seriously, I used to knock kids like this to the ground during recess. Leaving aside the fact that James is not old enough to remember professional basketball in the 1980s, the history he's picked up during his 26 years is almost certainly informed by this demonstrated tendency to jump on a bandwagon. So he probably knows about the Celtics and Lakers, maybe the Sixers, and doesn't recall how the league had to step in to save his former franchise--the Cavaliers--from mad man owner Ted Septien. Or how the Utah Jazz explored a merger with the Denver Nuggets. I'd wager that there are few people on Earth that love the 1980s era NBA more than I, but the idea that the league needs to revert back to that decade is ridiculous.

 

There are two factors that should determine how many teams should be in a sports league: 1. How many markets can profitably sustain a franchise over the long term? 2. How much professional-caliber talent is on hand to stock the rosters of the teams?

 

Taking the second of these items first (available talent), it's really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. With basketball becoming an increasingly global sport, there never has been a wider pool of talent than there is right now. We've seen how competitive the best international teams are with our own All-Star Olympic squads, the most recent of which have included James. There are more than enough quality players to sustain 30 teams, and probably many more than that.

 

As far as fewer teams leading to more star-studded rosters, I doubt that as well. What does James consider a star? There are are generally about 5-10, at most, top-shelf players in the league at any one time. There are probably fewer than that. We're talking about players whose presence alone makes a team competitive. James qualifies as one of those players. However, for his plan to make sense, the league would need to get down to about four teams. Beyond the upper crust, most players are pretty replaceable. If you combine the top-shelf players on a handful of teams, you end up with a non-competitive league.

 

Is there is a quality of play issue in the NBA? I don't think so. Certainly some teams are worse than others, but even in that sense it's not really because of a lack of talent. Good teams play entertaining and, for the most part, fundamentally-sound basketball. Bad teams don't. It's always been that way. There seems to be more athletic-but-clueless players than there was in the '80s but that may be due more to age than talent. You hear how the NBA has gotten younger because of all the early-entry players, but the consequences of that are overblown. Maybe there are more raw players than there was back in the days of break dancing and knit ties, but those players don't define the league. In terms of league average age weighted by minutes played, the NBA was 26.4 years old in the 1983-84 season. This year, it's 27.5 years old. The NBA was, and is, a league for men. Plus, the kids on the bench are learning how to play the pro game, not how to execute the schemes of egomaniacal college coaches.

 

As far as the number of sustainable markets ... as long as there are cities seeking teams, then there aren't too many teams. Personally, I'd like the NBA to add two more, though that might have something to do with the symmetry 32 teams and how that appeals to my own peculiar need for an orderly universe. Are there underperforming markets? Sure. And those teams are run poorly. There are small markets like Salt Lake City and San Antonio that thrive. Guess what? Those organizations are run well. Even New Orleans deserves a few years to see how it can do now that it's out of the hands of George Shinn.

 

The NBA needs more parity and that is reportedly one of the primary aims of management's agenda in the current labor negotations. Again, this is not a contemporary problem. The NBA has always been top-heavy and it never was more so than in the 1980s. A return to that state of being might seem pretty sweet for LeBron James and his cronies. For the vast majority of us, the 21st century NBA works just fine.

 

All of this is meant as a response to James, who speaks out of ignorance. I'm not trying to side-step the very real issues that plague the NBA, issues that will be highlighted again and again as the CBA negotiations intensify. To achieve the parity to which I allude, the league is going to have to adopt a far more robust model for revenue distribution. In that kind of a structure, markets that eat from the pie without adding any ingredients to the mix do harm to everyone at the table. First, the NBA has to fix the parity problem. If at that point there are still markets that are consistently unprofitable AND there are no other cities viable for an NBA franchise, then--and only then--should contraction become a real option. Until then, can we please just stop sticking microphones in LeBron James' face?

 

 

Bradford Doolittle at BP calls out LeBron for saying things he has no idea what he's talking about. Enjoy and Merry Christmas to all!

 

http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1364

 

 

 

[The Truth]

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting LeBron's comments. he was endorsing contraction because he thinks more stars on fewer teams is best for the league. rather than each team having one or two really good players, he wants them to have three or four. I think that was really the only point he was trying to make.

 

that said, I disagree with LeBron and agree with the author on this one. I think 32 teams would be great. 32 teams, 16 make the playoffs, it works perfectly. with the increase in skilled, young athletes and the rise of foreign talents, I believe the league could successfully sustain 32 teams, all with supporting markets.

 

LeBron was right in that there are quite a few teams that are watered down now, but that can change. with shorter player contracts, an increased salary cap, and the elimination of the age limit, you'd have more players flowing into the league and switching teams every summer. they could probably make it work, but it's not gonna happen. they're going to stick with thirty teams and try to increase revenue with their existing markets.

[*Swish*]

THATS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!!

[Erick Blasco]

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting LeBron's comments. he was endorsing contraction because he thinks more stars on fewer teams is best for the league. rather than each team having one or two really good players, he wants them to have three or four. I think that was really the only point he was trying to make.

 

that said, I disagree with LeBron and agree with the author on this one. I think 32 teams would be great. 32 teams, 16 make the playoffs, it works perfectly. with the increase in skilled, young athletes and the rise of foreign talents, I believe the league could successfully sustain 32 teams, all with supporting markets.

 

LeBron was right in that there are quite a few teams that are watered down now, but that can change. with shorter player contracts, an increased salary cap, and the elimination of the age limit, you'd have more players flowing into the league and switching teams every summer. they could probably make it work, but it's not gonna happen. they're going to stick with thirty teams and try to increase revenue with their existing markets.

 

Except that 1) it's financially dumb for the NBA to contract considering the revenue the majority of teams bring to the league as a whole, and 2) It would be pretty boring to have a league of the Heat, Lakers, Celtics, Magic, and everybody else stunk. Of course LeBron wants there to be only a handful of superteams. He's a clueless elitist and always will be. He's the guy who would tell starving NBA fans in cities like New Orleans and Seattle to eat cake.

 

There are some franchises that are poorly run, but that's not usually a result of markets or a spread out talent pool. Mostly it's on GM's who don't know how to put teams together.

[Nitro]

2) It would be pretty boring to have a league of the Heat, Lakers, Celtics, Magic, and everybody else stunk.

 

What makes that so different from today's NBA? Every season there are between 2-5 teams with a legit shot at an NBA title, and the rest of the teams have no shot. IMO contraction would help those mid-level teams like the Bulls, Nuggets, and Knicks get to that next level and be able to compete with the elite teams. Contraction, if done correctly, would improve the quality of basketball for the half of the league that needs a boost. It would make the quality of games a lot better.

 

But as I said in the first thread devoted to his quotes, it will never happen because financially it makes 0 sense for the NBA to consider it. It would also rip a number of cities' hearts apart, much like when the Sonics left Seattle.

[The Truth]

Except that 1) it's financially dumb for the NBA to contract considering the revenue the majority of teams bring to the league as a whole, and 2) It would be pretty boring to have a league of the Heat, Lakers, Celtics, Magic, and everybody else stunk.

I know, man. that's why I said I disagree with LeBron and even suggested expansion.

 

that said, I disagree with LeBron and agree with the author on this one. I think 32 teams would be great. 32 teams, 16 make the playoffs, it works perfectly. with the increase in skilled, young athletes and the rise of foreign talents, I believe the league could successfully sustain 32 teams, all with supporting markets.

 

Of course LeBron wants there to be only a handful of superteams. He's a clueless elitist and always will be. He's the guy who would tell starving NBA fans in cities like New Orleans and Seattle to eat cake.

what? New Orleans has a team, and how is LeBron an elitist? he sacrificed millions of dollars and personal achievement just to increase his chances of winning. why he's condemned for that, I'll never know.

 

There are some franchises that are poorly run, but that's not usually a result of markets or a spread out talent pool. Mostly it's on GM's who don't know how to put teams together.

as in Danny Ferry, who failed to acquire LeBron a star teammate in seven years time?

 

I agree with what you're saying, but LeBron also has the right to think his own way. he's definitely made some ignorant statements in his career, but all star athletes have at one point or another.

[Erick Blasco]

What makes that so different from today's NBA? Every season there are between 2-5 teams with a legit shot at an NBA title, and the rest of the teams have no shot. IMO contraction would help those mid-level teams like the Bulls, Nuggets, and Knicks get to that next level and be able to compete with the elite teams. Contraction, if done correctly, would improve the quality of basketball for the half of the league that needs a boost. It would make the quality of games a lot better.

 

But as I said in the first thread devoted to his quotes, it will never happen because financially it makes 0 sense for the NBA to consider it. It would also rip a number of cities' hearts apart, much like when the Sonics left Seattle.

 

Because there's a strong mid-level in the NBA (Especially in the West), plus a lot of bad teams are young teams and it's fun seeing them progress along.

 

Watching the same teams all the time gets pretty boring to me. It's one of the reasons I make sure to watch and write about every team.

 

As far as bad quality, even with fewer teams, there will always be clubs that attract the biggest stars. You'll still have the same schism with the Lakers and Knicks gobbling up the better players, only this time, Portland will become the watered down team, or Atlanta, or Phoenix.

 

Plus nowadays, the quality of play across the board is better among the bad teams than it was early in the decade where all the league consisted of were various styles of iso-ball. I think the product is fine.

[Erick Blasco]

what? New Orleans has a team, and how is LeBron an elitist? he sacrificed millions of dollars and personal achievement just to increase his chances of winning. why he's condemned for that, I'll never know.

 

Because if LeBron had his way, there would be no team in New Orleans, and Chris Paul would be with the Heat, or Knicks, or Lakers. Who do you think he wants to contract? It won't be the Celtics and it won't be the Bulls. With contraction, you cut the smallest, most vulnerable markets, and since LeBron wants the league to be nothing but superstars, you liberate Chris Paul and send him to one of the league's best.

 

Look at who LeBron roots for. If you aren't a sports elitist rooting for the Yankees and Cowboys, what are you? Combine this with all of his decisions where he makes sure to be part of the bourgeoisie. The need to be associated with stars and to disavow himself from middle and lower class places like Cleveland---it's perfectly elitist.

as in Danny Ferry, who failed to acquire LeBron a star teammate in seven years time?

 

Who put all his eggs in one basket, had no plan B, and failed to generate the kind of culture where sacrifice and hard work was championed over play time.

I agree with what you're saying, but LeBron also has the right to think his own way. he's definitely made some ignorant statements in his career, but all star athletes have at one point or another.

 

He has the right to speak his mind just as much as everyone has the right to call him out for his ignorance.

Edited December 25, 2010 by Erick Blasco

[Nitro]

Because there's a strong mid-level in the NBA (Especially in the West), plus a lot of bad teams are young teams and it's fun seeing them progress along.

 

I don't find a lot of those bad "young" teams fun to watch or progress along. I'd venture to guess 70% of those teams with potential have a ceiling of 7th/8th seed in the playoffs (like the Grizzlies), and the other 30% maybe make it to a 4th or 5th seed tops (Blazers, Thunder). Generally speaking, the most successful teams are those who actively pursue talent via trades and free agency as opposed to simply letting a roster loaded with "potential" try and come into their own.

 

Either way, if you take off 3 teams from each conference, the level of talent for the remaining teams gets much, much better. Give teams like Milwaukee and Indiana guys like Griffin, Love, Evans and Wall, and teams like OKC and Chicago guys like Landry, Hinrich, etc...they will get leaps and bounds better. The benches will be deeper. The level of play and competitiveness WILL increase.

 

Watching the same teams all the time gets pretty boring to me. It's one of the reasons I make sure to watch and write about every team.

 

It gets boring to me too...but we aren't talking about a 10 team league. 20-25 teams would still be a lot better than 30 teams.

 

As far as bad quality, even with fewer teams, there will always be clubs that attract the biggest stars. You'll still have the same schism with the Lakers and Knicks gobbling up the better players, only this time, Portland will become the watered down team, or Atlanta, or Phoenix.

 

I agree to an extent, but you are looking at it wrong. Even though there will still be a hierarchy of great teams, the level of talent for the lower level teams will be significantly higher than it currently is. And as a 20-25 team league evolves, the upper level teams will also get stronger. As talent has gotten better over the last 5 years or so, the top level teams are a LOT stronger talent-wise than they were in the early-mid '00's. IMO, and I think as the ratings show, in most people's opinions, this is better for the league. That will only get more profound as the league evolves with 5-10 less teams.

 

Also, with less teams, that means less guys that have to play like superstars. A ton of players who are currently #1 or #2 options that should be #3 or #4 options will get a chance to play that role.

 

Plus nowadays, the quality of play across the board is better among the bad teams than it was early in the decade where all the league consisted of were various styles of iso-ball. I think the product is fine.

 

The product is fine...but it would get better under contraction.

[Poe]

I personally think there should be 40 teams or so, and put 10 in Europe. There's too much talent not to add more teams, and I don't see a reason why the NBA has to be limited to the US and Canada.

[Nitro]

I personally think there should be 40 teams or so, and put 10 in Europe. There's too much talent not to add more teams, and I don't see a reason why the NBA has to be limited to the US and Canada.

 

Travel.

[Lkr]

I personally think there should be 40 teams or so, and put 10 in Europe. There's too much talent not to add more teams, and I don't see a reason why the NBA has to be limited to the US and Canada.

I don't think the travel would work well for the Europeans or Americans.

[Poe]

Travel.

 

Overseas road trip.

[The Truth]

Because if LeBron had his way, there would be no team in New Orleans, and Chris Paul would be with the Heat, or Knicks, or Lakers. Who do you think he wants to contract? It won't be the Celtics and it won't be the Bulls. With contraction, you cut the smallest, most vulnerable markets, and since LeBron wants the league to be nothing but superstars, you liberate Chris Paul and send him to one of the league's best.

meh, just disregard that part of my post. I thought since you mentioned New Orleans with Seattle, you thought they no longer had a team.

 

Look at who LeBron roots for. If you aren't a sports elitist rooting for the Yankees and Cowboys, what are you? Combine this with all of his decisions where he makes sure to be part of the bourgeoisie.

what decisions are you referring to, specifically? the decision to play with fellow superstars? how is it bad to want to play with great players?

 

The need to be associated with stars and to disavow himself from middle and lower class places like Cleveland---it's perfectly elitist.

you'd have to be crazy to think he left Cleveland because of its status. he's an Ohio native, he lived there his whole life. he left because he never won a title there and because the front office was essentially useless, not because of the city's reputation.

 

Who put all his eggs in one basket, had no plan B, and failed to generate the kind of culture where sacrifice and hard work was championed over play time.

are you referring to Ferry or LeBron?

 

He has the right to speak his mind just as much as everyone has the right to call him out for his ignorance.

again, I agree. it doesn't bother me that people badmouth LeBron. I've accepted the fact that most are going to hate him for the rest of his life. I actually like that he's hated; it'll feel that much sweeter when he finally gets that title.

Edited December 25, 2010 by HOV

[Erick Blasco]

I don't find a lot of those bad "young" teams fun to watch or progress along. I'd venture to guess 70% of those teams with potential have a ceiling of 7th/8th seed in the playoffs (like the Grizzlies), and the other 30% maybe make it to a 4th or 5th seed tops (Blazers, Thunder). Generally speaking, the most successful teams are those who actively pursue talent via trades and free agency as opposed to simply letting a roster loaded with "potential" try and come into their own.

 

Either way, if you take off 3 teams from each conference, the level of talent for the remaining teams gets much, much better. Give teams like Milwaukee and Indiana guys like Griffin, Love, Evans and Wall, and teams like OKC and Chicago guys like Landry, Hinrich, etc...they will get leaps and bounds better. The benches will be deeper. The level of play and competitiveness WILL increase.

 

By default, but then, where do you draw the line. 20 teams means 10 teams cut---that's a lot of decent basketball players pushed aside, and it means 10 teams in each conference. Do you cut the playoffs to four teams? And what if these guys don't go to OKC and Chicago, but go to the Lakers and Celtics? You'd still have the same problem.

 

 

I agree to an extent, but you are looking at it wrong. Even though there will still be a hierarchy of great teams, the level of talent for the lower level teams will be significantly higher than it currently is. And as a 20-25 team league evolves, the upper level teams will also get stronger. As talent has gotten better over the last 5 years or so, the top level teams are a LOT stronger talent-wise than they were in the early-mid '00's. IMO, and I think as the ratings show, in most people's opinions, this is better for the league. That will only get more profound as the league evolves with 5-10 less teams.

 

Yet this has happened, despite expansion taking place within the period.

 

I mean, you're right, the quality of play will be better just like a league of two teams with 10 superstars will be better than a team of 20 teams with 10 superstars. The quality of play will be better. But there will still be a small elite that will put together rosters that can't be touched by other teams.This doesn't guarantee more parity. This has been consistent throughout NBA history, from the three teams of the 80's, to Wilt vs Russell before. There will always be an extreme subset of haves and have-nots competing for titles.

 

Plus, the rise of the quality of play of today has stemmed more from a better quality of player that allows himself to be coached, and doesn't simply jack up bad shot after bad shot. This also has to do with better coaching and factors outside of contraction.

Also, with less teams, that means less guys that have to play like superstars. A ton of players who are currently #1 or #2 options that should be #3 or #4 options will get a chance to play that role.

 

Agreed. On the other hand, it does limit the ability of certain players to take on larger roles and perhaps grow as players.

The product is fine...but it would get better under contraction.

 

Would you say there's any need for contraction looking at all the factors involved?

[Erick Blasco]

meh, just disregard that part of my post. I thought since you mentioned New Orleans with Seattle, you thought they no longer had a team.

 

No problem. I should have been clearer. When I said starving fans, I think there is a fanbase in New Orleans that loves the Hornets, but they'd be slashed away. Them, Milwaukee, etc, those would be the teams gutted by contraction.

 

what decisions are you referring to, specifically? the decision to play with fellow superstars? how is it bad to want to play with great players?

 

He always surrounds himself with celebrity entourages, he aligns himself with elite teams/companies, he surrounds himself with power. He and his friends partner up to create a firm that panders to LeBron's every whim. He spits out food and berates the Chef in Beijing because food isn't exactly to his standard. He doesn't just go to any team to play with stars. He didn't go to Newark. He went to Miami, a luxury playground. Now these comments about contracting the weak and watered down. He's elitist through and through.

you'd have to be crazy to think he left Cleveland because of its status. he's an Ohio native, he lived there his whole life. he left because he never won a title there and because the front office was essentially useless, not because of the city's reputation.

 

I think you're a touch naive. He's loyal to Akron because he was born there. Other than that, he doesn't give a damn about Ohio.

 

 

are you referring to Ferry or LeBron?

 

Ferry.

[The Truth]

He always surrounds himself with celebrity entourages, he aligns himself with elite teams/companies, he surrounds himself with power. He and his friends partner up to create a firm that panders to LeBron's every whim. He spits out food and berates the Chef in Beijing because food isn't exactly to his standard.

of course he surrounds himself with power; he's a freemason.

 

 

He doesn't just go to any team to play with stars. He didn't go to Newark. He went to Miami, a luxury playground. Now these comments about contracting the weak and watered down. He's elitist through and through.

the Nets had Harris and Lopez. Miami had Wade and Bosh. there's no comparison. he could have stayed in Cleveland and played with Mo and Jamison or gone somewhere else and played with superstars. Miami was his best option, plain and simple. no other team could have provided him with that kind of talent.

 

I think you're a touch naive. He's loyal to Akron because he was born there. Other than that, he doesn't give a damn about Ohio.

so you actually believe he left Cleveland simply because of its status?

 

Ferry.

so you admit Ferry was mediocre as GM, but still condemn LeBron for leaving? how does that make sense? you know as well as I that teams need good management to contend for titles. you admit they had bad management, so how can he be blamed for leaving?

[htown11]

LeBron James loves attention so obviously he hangs out with very well known people. He is a fan of dominating franchises and so are a bunch of other fans across the country and the world.

 

I don't get why people care so much if someone roots for the Yankees, Patriots, and Lakers. I mean they instantly get labeled as bandwagoners who cares? Root for whoever you want whenever you want, there is no rule that says you can't.

 

LeBron James may be an elitist but many others are as well, it seems pretty common to me.

 

I don't agree with making the league smaller at all, I think the league should look to expand and always tap into new resources across the globe. Obviously the next big project for the NBA is to take India by storm and create a product that can have the same effect that Yao had on China.

 

LeBron will have someone call out his ignorance constantly for his entire career, because LeBron James is an ignorant guy. Maybe when he wins a championship all the banter that he speaks about won't really matter as much, but until then reporters can have fun taking shots back.

[The Truth]

I just read another article about this on Yahoo that also criticizes James for his beliefs. it's as if the author is creating some conspiracy that James is working under league interests in their attempts to destroy the players union. it's quite ridiculous, but entertaining nonetheless.

 

Nevertheless, you have to give King James this credit: he's embraced the villain role like no one before him and alienated people at a historically rapid rate. Now he's isolating himself amongst his peers, and that's a bold, unprecedented move on his part. The NBA has never had a superstar align himself with the interests of the commissioner and owners on the cusp of such a monumental fight, but understand this: it's an edgy move that will win him favor in the league office.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-kobelebron122410

[Erick Blasco]

I just read another article about this on Yahoo that also criticizes James for his beliefs. it's as if the author is creating some conspiracy that James is working under league interests in their attempts to destroy the players union. it's quite ridiculous, but entertaining nonetheless.

 

 

http://sports.yahoo....obelebron122410

 

Woj doesn't state that LeBron is working under league interests or is trying to actively undermine the union, just that statements like the ones he made obviously undermine everything the players union is about. Woj is one of the most credible basketball sources out there (though he does beat readers over the head with his disdain of Bron Bron). He isn't the kind of guy you dismiss as "Quite ridiculous, but entertaining nonetheless."

[Nitro]

Would you say there's any need for contraction looking at all the factors involved?

 

There's no need for it, just like I feel there's no need for expansion. There is also no way the NBA will ever consider contraction since there is far too much money at stake, so if they do make significant changes, it will be via expansion. However, I do feel that contraction would certainly add to the quality of play throughout the league, just like a shortened season and post-season would.

[The Truth]

Woj doesn't state that LeBron is working under league interests or is trying to actively undermine the union, just that statements like the ones he made obviously undermine everything the players union is about. Woj is one of the most credible basketball sources out there (though he does beat readers over the head with his disdain of Bron Bron). He isn't the kind of guy you dismiss as "Quite ridiculous, but entertaining nonetheless."

I'm not saying the author is ridiculous, but rather his article. he didn't state definitively that LeBron is doing anything, but it was implied, I thought.

 

my final thoughts on contraction: maybe for the NHL, but not the NBA. we need to let teams improve and prosper. eventually, that could be good for the league and the players.