In MVP debate, there’s a lot to talk about
Confession time: I can’t deny that I am part of the problem.
The combination of radio sports talk and what is referred to in the business as “talking heads” on TV have created topics we didn’t address 30 or 40 years ago. I mean, you have got to fill that air time and it can’t just be bland, sober analysis pertaining solely to the events of the day.
Speaking as someone who has done his share of radio talk and who has been happily seen on ESPN for more than three decades I am guilty as charged for perpetuating this phenomenon.
Now then, where were we?
Let’s start with Greatest of All Time, or GOAT. In theory, there is nothing wrong with the concept. The problem is in order to speak intelligently on the subject one would need a significant amount of historical knowledge and most people don’t have it. Then there are the people who think the old days were better by definition.
There is no doubt that the average modern athlete is superior to the average athlete of 30, 50, or 100 years ago. By “athleticism” we mean running, jumping, superior conditioning, opportunity, etc. But this does not mean they are better “players” in that particular sport, nor does it include everyone in the discussion.
We’ve got some pretty good examples right here in Boston. Bill Russell was an athlete far ahead of his time. As he loved to point out, he could kick the rim. At 6 feet 10 inches, he was the fastest man on the team. His timing on the boards was unsurpassed, then and now. No one utilized game psychology to the extent that Russell did. All this was parlayed into two NCAA championships, an Olympic gold medal, and 11 NBA titles in a 16-year span. He played his last game 54 years ago
Does anyone seriously think that Ted Williams, who hit .344 lifetime with 521 home runs despite missing three years of play during World War II, and who was the last .400 hitter, wouldn’t bring the same physical and mental attributes to a game today? It is getting fairly routine to suggest that Mike Trout, who is certainly very good, is baseball’s GOAT. Let’s hold on a minute.
Bobby Orr revolutionized the concept of what an NHL defenseman could be. He had consecutive years of scoring 120, 139, 117, 101, 122, and 135 points, which was absolutely unheard of for a defensemen. And it’s not as if he was neglecting his defenseman duties, since he also won eight consecutive Norris Trophies. Injuries ended his career at age 30. How could he not be considered as the logical GOAT? Yet people who don’t know any better automatically think it’s Wayne Gretzky. Anyway, it’s a fair discussion.
One thing we know for sure: any GOAT discussion is irresolvable. But it helps to know what you’re talking about.
One of the great faults of radio and TV talk is the need to get ahead the game. Take the subject of NBA Most Valuable Player. I swear, the debate began on or about Thanksgiving. How silly is that?
Each season has a different flavor or dynamic. There are three terrific candidates this time, and no matter who wins, the other two can make a case. Of course, their fans will be irate, and that’s to be expected.
I am speaking, of course, about twotime defending champion Nikola Jokic, the wondrous Giannis Antetokounmpo, and the alternately overpowering and elusive Joel Embiid.
One of the issues in the chat world is whether or not Jokic should be allowed to join Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Larry Bird as winners of three straight MVP awards. To me, it’s very simple: If you think he deserves it, vote for him. There has been no dropoff in his play. His team has been atop the West most of the season. You’re more surprised when he doesn’t have a triple-double than when he does.
Giannis has his own style, and when this 7-footer seizes the opportunity to head for the basket it is unlike any other such perambulation in league history. It almost seems as if he can take his last dribble at midcourt, concluding within a Euro step that, in his case, is more like a Euro gallop. He also rebounds expertly and has even had a triple-double or two. Oh, and he is an All-Defensive guy, as well. You can never go wrong voting for Giannis, already a two-time winner.
Threatening both of them is Embiid, a classic modern big who can abuse you inside and torture you from the outside. His recent 52-point outburst against the Celtics was a frightening offensive display in which he shot a startling 20 for 25 from the floor, utilizing an assortment of moves that once were the province of men a half-foot shorter. He has carried the 76ers to the third seed in the East and they will be a tough out.
A voter can be excused for not having made up his or her mind at this late stage. But people were yakking about it three months ago.
The new sports talk kick is to assess someone’s “legacy.” Of course, they are misusing the word, which either means “a gift of personal property by will” or “practices that are handed down from the past by tradition.” So what exactly are they looking for? I’m not sure.
If they mean to leave a lasting impression of how someone played the game, I’m OK with that. I’ve got my own mental catalogue of past stars. I can see Russell pulling down a rebound and firing an outlet pass. I can see Elgin Baylor bobbing and weaving and then going up and under. I can see Earl “The Pearl” Monroe in a spinarama. I can see Dirk Nowitzki with his amazing step-back. But “legacy?” What exactly is that?
No one knows. But we’ll discuss it anyway. It’s what we do.