“Too Much Kobe”? Try “Not Enough Defense”
Posted by Neil Paine on January 31, 2011
Just a brief rant about the media reaction to yesterday's Celtics win over LA...
After the game, especially on the SportsCenter coverage last night, I saw "Too Much Kobe" being held up as an explanation for the Lakers' struggles. Here's a sample:
"Bryant took 29 of the Lakers' 66 field goal attempts (43.9 percent) while he was on the floor. This was the 10th game this season that Bryant took more than 40 percent of the Lakers' shots while on the court. In those 10 games, the Lakers are 3-7. Los Angeles is much better when Bryant shoots a smaller percent of the team's shots while on the court. The Lakers are 23-5 when Bryant takes less than 35 percent of the team's shots when on the floor."
That's a familiar media theme when Kobe scores a ton of points but his team loses; we saw it a lot in 2006, for instance.
As far as I can tell, "Too Much Kobe" is exclusively an offensive criticism. Trouble is, L.A.'s offense was fine yesterday. Against the 3rd-best defense in the league, against whom an average team would expect to score about 104 pts/100 poss. at home, the Lakers scored 110.1. The offense is not why L.A. lost, and therefore "Too Much Kobe" can't be why they lost.
They lost because they allowed the 11th-best offense in the NBA to score a staggering 125.0 points per 100 possessions against them on the road. This may or may not be Kobe's fault -- aside from personal fouls, he wasn't overly active on D, and despite his scoring feats the Lakers were -9 when he was on the court.
But it can't possibly be because Kobe had zero assists.
February 2nd, 2011 at 12:03 pm
http://www.newsok.com/hornets-trevor-ariza-having-success-defending-thunders-kevin-durant/article/3537344?custom_click=lead_story_title
"Only one player this season can lay claim to holding NBA scoring leader Kevin Durant scoreless in the fourth quarter. New Orleans forward Trevor Ariza. In the last meeting between the Thunder and the Hornets on Jan. 24, Ariza's defense helped keep Durant off the scoreboard in a closely-contested final period that featured three ties, two lead changes and neither team holding more than a six-point advantage. Durant went 0-for-5 in the quarter. He played 6 minutes, 58 seconds. Ariza played 6 minutes, 48 seconds. The Hornets won, 91-89, on a game-winner by David West. Remember those facts tonight. While the point guard battle between Russell Westbrook and Chris Paul serves as the sexiest matchup in the teams' fourth and final meeting this season, the more significant chess match will be between Durant and Ariza."
February 2nd, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Durant vs Lakers, 2010 playoffs
G5 5/14 FG
G6 5/23 FG (he did make 14 FTS)
Pierce vs. Lakers, 2010 playoffs
G6 6/14 FG
G7 5/15 FG
The Lakers won all 4. Artest of course scored 20 himself in Game 7.
Ariza matches up well with Durant; they are both skinny. If NO plays OKC come post-season, we will see how it goes down. Pierce, Anthony, and James different than Durant, however. Artest has not done that well against James, which will be an issue if we actually get a Lakers/Heat Finals match-up.
Like I said, the players are about even, and Artest did what he was brought in to do at the time he was brought in to do it. You can dismiss that if you want to, but it's pretty dumb to do so, particularly when no one is going RON-RON BABY!!!!! We are looking at both sides of it.
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Sweet! LeBron posts here.
February 2nd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Please tell me the Lebron James handle and comments about Kobe needing Pau and Odom are meant to be ironic.
Oh god, please.
February 2nd, 2011 at 3:03 pm
I'm sure Lebron didn't write or think that. It was something a friend of his said, and he's just passing it on.
February 2nd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Can someone please explain to me how scoring the basketball somehow DOESN'T make you a team player? Isn't that the point of the game in the first place?
February 2nd, 2011 at 3:49 pm
"Can someone please explain to me how scoring the basketball somehow DOESN'T make you a team player? Isn't that the point of the game in the first place?"
Traditionally, league scoring champs have not been on the winning team. It has to do with keeping everyone else involved. Players tend to stop moving on offense if they know they won't get the ball if they get open. And that tends to carry over on the defensive end. Help defense tends to be slow or not happen at all. Everything stagnates and becomes a struggle. And if one player shoots too much, it allows the other team to sit back on defense and save their energy reserves for offense. For instance, watch Rondo in those clips Mahoney provided. When Fisher ran to the weak side away from Kobe to set up, Rondo stayed put in the lane, ready to help out if Kobe tried to take it all the way. The usual thing to do would be to punish Rondo for not guarding Fisher and to pass the ball to a wide open Fisher for an unmolested 3 rather than settle for a contested 19 footer. Instead, Kobe missed the shot and Rondo got a nice little breather for himself not having to follow Fisher over to the weak side.
I realize the Lakers were in a funk and Kobe was the only one hitting shots with any consistency but not passing to them is not going to help anyone's confidence. When Kobe takes so many shots, he's basically telling his teammates "You guys suck. I'm the only one who can put the ball in the hole on this team.".
I did watch the game last night and Kobe did seem to make an effort to involve everyone more. he made a few nice passes for good shots so it's not like he can't do it. Odom and Gasol had solid games as a result.
February 2nd, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I want someone to explain how the guy who is on track to be the only 30 6 6 k in NBA history can be condensced into being simply a "selfish" non-team player. You don't get 6000 assists easily in the triangle, which is the only system he's ever run (Rudy don't count). Has Kobe had many, many games where he focused to much on scoring, yep. He also has at least as many where he cared as much about defense and facilitation. He's one of the greatest scorer's ever, thank god he shot a lot. He's better than you want him to be and not as good as you want him to be as that same time. Jordan was the same way, accept he was worshipped by everyone and never had true Haters like Abbot undermine his abilities and often the public's perceptions of his talent on a regular basis. Even Bill Simmons at some point realized he was in a losing battle. Kobe will be remembered as one of the greatest because frankly, he is. As a competitor, a teammate, and a winner.
February 2nd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
I deleted the "LeBron" comment... Just FYI, it's a violation of our comment policies to impersonate a player.
February 2nd, 2011 at 4:33 pm
If the reply is "maybe they can't win it this year, they don't have the intensity, they've lost to great teams", my answer is: so what?
It's practically unheard of to go to the Finals 4 years in a row and a 3peat in a league with so many great teams and players is almost as difficult. There is no shame in losing to the Spurs in the WCF this year.
February 2nd, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Abbott posted a link to a curl play the Lakers ran to ice it. Bryant, BTW, said after the game he wants to play more off the ball and wants Gasol to be more aggressive. Here is what I posted at TrueHoop:
It is a lot easier for Odom and Gasol to play against Chuck Hayes, Chase Budinger, and Luis Scola than against Kendrick Perkins, Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, and Glen Davis.
I assume Abbott thinks (posting) this proves that he is
a) Right
b) Objective
But, actually, it shows his biggest problem (and Mahoney's, and Simmons'): they think everything is about Kobe Bryant. This play worked in large part because of who the opponent was, the most undersized team in the NBA, that allows a lot of assisted buckets:
DEFENSIVE RATING/OPPONENT ASSISTS (RANK)
HOUSTON: 110.0 (24) 1045 (20)
BOSTON: 100.1 (2) 892 (2)
After Bryant caught the ball, the help guy was Chuck Hayes, a tough player--but the league's shortest 5.
Don't get me wrong; the idea of less iso in crunch time has merit, and Kobe sometimes jacks up shots he shouldn't.
But the next time Abbott and Mahoney watch a Lakers game, they should try watching the other nine guys on the floor occasionally.
___
As to Kevin's description of the play:
1. Rondo is on Blake, not Fisher, in every sequence on the Mahoney clip.
2. In the play in question, I think, people watching should watch:
a) Bynum (weakside, hands down, not looking for position)
b) How Blake leisurely runs the baseline, clearing the mid-post and setting up weakside.
c) How Garnett shades a possible cross-court passing lane, by dropping into the key after Kobe gets the ball.
Fisher is at the arc, and Kobe could have given it to him, that part is right. Fisher is shooting .402 on 3s this year. But like I said, it is Pierce, not Rondo, on Fisher. Pierce gets hung up briefly on a Gasol screen, and one could argue that at that point, Kobe should have given Fisher the ball. But Fisher is spaced at an angle, about 30 feet from the basket,and keeps his hands down almost the whole time. Plus, Fisher has a slow release; Pierce might well have been able to get out there and distract him.
3. Blake was in the corner, so Fisher if he had gotten the ball might have swung it to Blake, who is hitting .395 on 3s on the year. But like I said, Blake just jogs the baseline, gets there late. Rondo lets Blake go, IMO knowing who he plays with: he will have help.
Kobe decides to put up a fallaway off a step back/pivot, which misses short.
Next time down, they swing the ball back to Kobe after Fisher and Gasol touch it, he beats Allen, but Davis gets there in time enough to distract him and he shoots it to hard off the window. Again, watch Gasol and Bynum--neither makes any serious effort to get the ball or set up on the block, or mid-post.
So, there is lot of stuff going on. Kobe is part of the problem. So are the other guys, and you also have to look at who the opponent is. Boston wants gys to play ISO, and they are good at making it happen.
February 2nd, 2011 at 5:41 pm
"I'm not sure why so many people want to criticize them and figure out what Kobe is doing wrong when they've been to 3 straight Finals and won back2back. What else are they supposed to do?"
On NBA TV last night, Brent Barry and Dennis Scott, and then Tim Legler on ESPN, were basically reiterating what Mahoney indicated in his column- the Lakers offense is out of whack if Kobe takes that many shots. Barry mantioned Gasol getting good post position several times in the Celtics game but not ever getting a touch. These guys aren't writers. They aren't MSM. They are former NBA players who know what the score is.
February 2nd, 2011 at 5:50 pm
"But Fisher is spaced at an angle, about 30 feet from the basket,and keeps his hands down almost the whole time."
Even if they were down, all Kobe had to do is throw it at his waist and Fisher would have been able to catch it easily. And Kobe could have led the pass so Fisher had forward momentum into the incipient shot. And even if Garnett (or Pierce) were able to jump out and contest it, Fisher could have swung the ball to blake, who was WIDE OPEN in the corner, since his man was standing in the middle of the key and would not have had time to recover. Or, if there was a radical shift by the defense to the weak side, then Fisher could have throw it right back to Kobe for an isolation on Allen.
If you don't pass the ball, it's really hard to get the defense out of position. As every coach will tell you, the ball moves a lot faster and covers a lot more ground when you pass it than when you dribble it.
February 2nd, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Abbott has posted a Kobe quote in a JA Adande column:
"Me going one-on-three, one-on-four at the end of games … I don't care how good you are, it's tough to do," Bryant said. "So [let Odom] be the playmaker, let me come off the ball. Now I catch it, the defense is not set, now I can make plays I can take a shot or make the defense collapse. I think that's much better."
I don't know how to interpret this. Is Kobe saying he STILL wants to be the shooter, just off a pass rather than a dribble isolation? Or did he just phrase that unfortunately?
February 2nd, 2011 at 6:05 pm
@ 113
You're exaggerating, (as you did yesterday when you said guys were "waving frantically for the ball"--no one does that on the whole clip) and again, you are ignoring the Boston D. By the time the ball swung all the way to the corner, they might have been able to close, (Garnett was over there) and by the time they swung it back, in your other scenario, you might have shot clock issues. Also, like I said, Blake ran the baseline very casually.
Finally, there is the question of whether a 3 from Blake or Fisher is really the shot you want in that spot. My guess is Rivers would be OK with a 3 from Blake or Fisher as the Lakers' shot with Boston up 6 late. Fallaways look bad when they miss, but that is one of Kobe's shots. Should he have taken that particular one? Maybe not. But there were a lot of reasons he did.
Basically, you are saying "move the ball" which I read on Laker blogs every game preview and which everybody knows. But many times against Boston last year, the paint would be packed and the Lakers would just swing the ball around the perimeter and get little or nothing for it. Boston is #2 (very close to #1) in defense for a reason.
February 2nd, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Now I catch it, the defense is not set, now I can make plays I can take a shot or make the defense collapse.
___
I think he is saying that he wants to get the ball off curls--this is a big thing among the keyboard coaches in LakerLand (not that it's a bad idea) so he can pass or shoot.
February 2nd, 2011 at 6:33 pm
It's a chicken-or-egg argument. Does the offense suffer because Kobe takes so many shots, or does Kobe take so many shots because the offense is suffering? When the other two perimeter shooters go 2-16, wouldn't you want your shooting guard to, you know, shoot his team out of a funk?
Kobe Bryant is not Magic Johnson. He's not going to run around dishing like crazy to get his team into the game. Yet whenever the Laker lose, the criticism is always the same: Why isn't he someone other than who he is? Why can't he be Magic Johnson for three quarters, and then Jordan for the fourth, especially when he's never been anything except for who he is: He's a shooting guard and a volume scorer, and he's been extraordinarily successful at it. The bar for Bryant is ridiculously high and the expectations have never been realistic. That he's carved out a 1st tier Hall of Fame career while refusing to assume the roles that other people have set for him infuriates people like Kevin; that he can flaunt five rings while playing with such team-destroying selfishness makes him the absolute Devil.
This all ignores the fact that the 22-27 Rockets took the Lakers to overtime. If Lowry or Brooks could hit the side of the barn last night, Bryant would have had 26-10-5 in a losing cause, and all the Kevins of the world would be trying to blame him for Scola eating Gasol's lunch in the last three minutes.
It is a strange world. Everyone in Lakerland worries about every other Laker except Bryant, while the rest of the NBA doesn't seem to acknowledge that other Lakers besides Bryant even exist.
February 2nd, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Well, it's pretty simple.
If the Lakers lose and Kobe was shooting poorly, it's his fault.
If the Lakers lose and Kobe was shooting well, it's his fault for not getting teammates involved.
If the Lakers win and Kobe doesn't play great or other teammates play great, then they won because of Pau
If the Lakers win and Kobe plays great, then it's because the team played great
February 2nd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
"It's a chicken-or-egg argument. Does the offense suffer because Kobe takes so many shots, or does Kobe take so many shots because the offense is suffering? When the other two perimeter shooters go 2-16, wouldn't you want your shooting guard to, you know, shoot his team out of a funk?"
No, the NBA is the pee-wee basketball leagues, remember? Everyone gets an equal opportunity to shoot the ball no matter what - don't wanna bruise those egos now :)
February 2nd, 2011 at 7:20 pm
"You're exaggerating, (as you did yesterday when you said guys were "waving frantically for the ball"--no one does that on the whole clip) and again, you are ignoring the Boston D."
At 0:39, Fisher is crouched and has his hands up, expecting the ball that never came. And I'm not ignoring the defense. Look at how much room there is between the Laker wings and the defenders. There's probably 15 feet between Fisher and Blake and the nearest defender.
February 2nd, 2011 at 7:32 pm
"Finally, there is the question of whether a 3 from Blake or Fisher is really the shot you want in that spot."
Uhhh, yeahh. You're down 11 with 3:50 minutes left, of course a wide open 3 would help. Blake abd Fisher have the best %'s on the team. Who else would you want? A contested 3 from Kobe? And if you aren't going to get that out of F&B, what else do you expect to get out of them? That's what they're on the team for.
February 2nd, 2011 at 7:32 pm
So when former players were falling all over themselves proclaiming Kobe Bryant to be the best player in the NBA the last two years — and many of them still do — they must have been exactly right. And I know this because Kevin said that those guys know what the score is.
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:34 am
@121
Kobe was 3/5 on 3s in that game; the rest of the team was 1/4. Boston is #2 in the NBA in 3PA allowed. They want to make you beat them with long 2s, and they are good at it. But again, I expect Doc Rivers and Lawrence Frank would live with Fisher and Blake trying to stage a miracle rally on deep 3s.
You are forgetting something else: Bryant draws a lot of fouls in crunch time. Twice it appeared he was trying/hoping to get calls in the Mahoney clip. On one, Allen played disciplined, stayed down, and forced a miss. It was Bryant's worst shot attempt of the sequence, but he was probably trying to get a call. Ref called it right. The second time, he beat Allen but the help guy--I think Davis--got there in time, and it was a charge. These are things the Celtics do.
As to the argument that iso-ball leads to breakdowns on D--maybe it does. I would like to see a study. But even if it does, that is on the whole team and the coaches, not just on the guy taking over the game.
February 3rd, 2011 at 1:01 am
Durant had 43 tonight against the Hornets, nine in the fourth, including 7 in a 57-second span that more or less decided the game. Ariza had 5 points, and was 2/9 from the floor.
February 3rd, 2011 at 2:20 am
#107
"Traditionally, league scoring champs have not been on the winning team."
Except, of course, for when Michael Jordan was scoring champ. And when Kareem was scoring champ. And then there was that year that Shaq was scoring champ and won it all with the Lakers. And then there was the year Shaq was scoring champ and his Magic lost in the finals. And the year Iverson was champ and lost in the finals.
Of the last 40 years, the top scorer also won the NBA ring in 9 years (Jordan 6 times, Abdul-Jabbar 2 times, and Shaq once). And in two years was runner up. So 25% of the time the scoring champ goes to the finals.
Just looking at the numbers, I'd say that scoring champs go to the finals (and win) pretty darn frequently.
If we're talking about the effect of a ball-hog scorer on a team, we might look at top-5 scorers to see if these top scorers aren't on winning teams.
In 2010 the #4 scorer (Kobe) won the ring
in 2009 the #3 scorer (Kobe) won
2008: no top scorer (Boston); #2 scorer (Kobe) loses finals
2007: no top scorer (Spurs); #4 scorer (James) loses finals
2006: the #5 scorer (Wade) won
2005: no top scorer (Spurs over Pistons)
2004: no top scorer (Pistons); #4 scorer (Kobe) loses finals
2003: no top scorer (Spurs over Nets)
2002: the #2 scorer (Shaq) won
2001: the #2 and #3 scorers (Shaq and Kobe) won, and the #1 scorer (Iverson) lost in the finals
2000: the #1 scorer (Shaq) won
1999: no top scorer (Spurs)
1998: Jordan wins ring and scoring title; Malone, #3 scorer loses in finals
1997: Jordan; Malone, #2 scorer, loses finals
1996: Jordan
1995: #2 scorer (Olajuwon) takes title; #1 scorer (Shaq) loses in finals.
1994: #3 scorer (Olajuwon) take title
1993: Jordan ring and title; #5 scorer (Barkley) loses finals
1992: Jordan ring and title; #4 scorer (Drexler) loses in finals
1991: Jordan ring and title
1990: no top scorer in finals (Pistons over Blazers)
1989: no top scorer (Pistons over Lakers)
1988: no top scorer (Lakers over Pistons)
1987: #4 scorer (Bird) loses in finals
1986: #4 scorer (Bird) takes ring
1985: #2 scorer (Bird) loses in finals
1984: no top scorer (Celts over Lakers)
1983: #5 scorer (Malone) takes ring.
1982: #5 scorer (Erving) loses in finals
1981: #2 scorer (Malone) loses in finals
So, in the last 31 years, there have been 10 years when no top-5 scorer was in the finals,
16 times the NBA champ had a top-5 scorer on the team, and 12 times a top-5 scorer was on the NBA runner-up.
So, let's see: the scoring champ has won the NBA championship about 25% of the time (11 of the last 41). A top-5 scorer is on the champ over 50% of the time (16/31). A top-5 scorer has been on 28 of the last 62 conference champs.
So does having one of those ballhogs really screw a team up? Or do those guys help a team win?
February 3rd, 2011 at 2:21 am
ooops: "scoring champ has won the NBA championship about 25% of the time (9 of the last 41)."
February 3rd, 2011 at 9:59 am
Kareem won 1 title as scoring champ, not 2. Shaq won 1 as scoring champ. MJ won 6, but that's why he is considered the GOAT. That's 3 players since the shotclock era began in 1955.
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:23 am
127-
That doesn't change the overall point, though, which is obvious: you almost always need a great scorer to win the title, and you need to have help around him. It is possible to win with a balanced offense, and no Top 10 in the league guys: 2008 Celtics, 1989-1990 Pistons, 2004 Pistons if:
You have several excellent players.
You have an elite defense.
But building a team that way is hard. It is easier to land a superstar and build around him. The "landing a superstar" part generally involves a bit of luck, of course. The other team that has won recently without a Top-5 scorer, the Spurs, had a Top 5 player in Duncan.
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:59 am
Team balance as it relates to championships has been discussed at length here:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6013
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:20 pm
He cherry-picked the endpoints too. If he included the 60's and 70's the picture would look quite different. And there can be a huge difference between the #1 and #5 scorer so I don't see how meaningful it is to include that in there.
February 3rd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
If he included the 60's and 70's the picture would look quite different.
__
Sure it would, because the Celtics had Bill Russell and Bob Cousy, (and Sam Jones and John Havlicek and Tom Heinsohn) and there were 8,9, 10, 12, or 14 teams in the NBA, depending on the year. So, yeah, if you have Russell or Duncan to anchor your D and some top-flight wings and/or points with him, or if you have Kevin Garnett to anchor your D, and Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and Rajon Rondo with him, yeah, then you can win without a super scorer.
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Ariza sprained his ankle and missed the second half of the OKC/NO game. Needs to be said in view of previous discussion. Did not know until today.
OTOH, Durant had 21 in the first half, when Ariza, who played 21 minutes, was out there.
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:58 pm
#130
Thing is, I wasn't trying to show that you need a top scorer to win. I was just trying to show that there's no "tradition" that top scorers don't win.
Obviously Jordan skews things--but then isn't that actually the most relevant comp anyway? Who does Kobe get compared to most often? Jordan got knocked for the exact same "selfish play" crap.
If you say there is a tradition that the #1 scorer only doesn't win, fine, but what do you mean by tradition? Do you mean that it is rare that the #1 scorer wins the championship? I wouldn't say that 1 in 3 is rare. But Jordan and Shaq account for 7 scoring champ/title combinations in the last 21 years. At that frequency rate, I think the onus is on you to show that there actually is some tradition that scoring champs don't win.
If random chance selected the top scorer, and random chance selected the winning team, we'd expect each team to have a 1 in 30 chance of having the top scorer, and each team would have a 1 in 30 chance of winning the championship. And there would--by random chance--be a 1 in 30 chance that a team would have both the championship and the top scorer. (Am I doing my math right?--each team has a 1/30 * 1/30 chance of having both; there are 30 teams, so the chance that the league would get both on a team is 1/30.) Clearly it happens a lot more often than that.
The data shows it clearly: top scorers do advance in the playoffs and win championships.
You say just the #1 guy, but sometimes the difference between the #1 and #5 doesn't really matter--often they're just the same guys in a different order--Kobe, James, Wade, Shaq, Jordan, Olajuwon, Kareem, Bird--these guys are the top scorers in their leagues; they win scoring titles, and they keep showing up in the finals--maybe not in the same years, but they're the same players.
And then there are the years that the loser in the finals had the top scorer, too--because we'd hardly say that a team that advances all the way to the finals didn't have a winning season.
You say there's a tradition that top scorers don't win, well, let's see the data. Show me the tradition instead of just claiming that it exists.
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Not trying to be snarky, I think the "tradition", as I suggest in 131, is that teams with awesome players win the title--be it a Russell (who skews this argument the other way in the 1960s) or a Jordan.
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
"Jordan got knocked for the exact same "selfish play" crap."
Did he though? Maybe a little but not much. I think he got ripped a little for being too hard on his teammates but he never got accused of taking too many or bad shots.
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:18 pm
The other thing is that Jordan's FG%'s were always pretty good while Kobe's are just meh.
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:44 pm
The whole "selfish Jordan" meme was Conventional Wisdom up until 1991; up until then, he was always being compared unfavorably to Magic Johnson. (Sound familiar?) Winning a ring — and beating Magic's team to get it — put that to rest.
News flash! Michael Jordan better than another player! Celtic fan thinks _____ quality of Kobe Bryant is meh! Film at 11.
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:53 pm
"The whole "selfish Jordan" meme was Conventional Wisdom up until 1991; up until then, he was always being compared unfavorably to Magic Johnson. (Sound familiar?)"
Yep. LeBron James comparisons to Kobe.
February 3rd, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Mikan won two titles as scoring champ.
I wonder if the whole "selfish scorer" meme came out of the 60s, when Wilt would win the scoring title and the Celtics, with Russell and about six other HoFers would win the title. Every year. And people would say how selfish Wilt was and that was why they couldn't get past the Celts.
February 3rd, 2011 at 7:05 pm
That's probably as good a place as any to look. I found a copy of a Playboy interview with Jordan from 1992, which references the whole "selfish" reputation:
That estimate, of course, factors in last season's drive to the championship, in which Jordan proved once and for all that, contrary to his image as a selfish shooter, he's probably the most complete player in the game today, capable of providing his team with the best shooting, passing and defense in the league, as well as those intangibles of leadership and inspiration. (Emphasis mine.)
February 3rd, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Whoops, missed a tag. Sure wish we could edit.
February 3rd, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Yeah, guys like Greer, Arizin, West and Baylor really sucked.
February 3rd, 2011 at 8:54 pm
#142 is Exhibit A that it's not enough to say that the Russell Celtics were the better team every year. The Kevins of the world insist that they have to be better human beings, too.