“Not Finance. Not strategy. Not technology. It is team work that remains the ultimate competitive advantage, both because it is so powerful and so rare.”
I read those words not in a sports book, but a business one. More on that later.
The book got me thinking about the Boston Celtics, and how little teamwork been discussed with the new-look team.
Let me first state that I believe in the "new-look" Boston Celtics.
Still, there has been little discussion about how this three-star team will achieve its goals.
The last time I looked, basketball was a team game.
That hasn’t changed over the years, though there has been a concerted effort by the NBA to market the stars, not the teams.
We're a star-struck, celebrity-driven society, I’m told.
Sports reflects the culture. You don’t have to read People magazine or the numerous knockoffs that have spawned like rabbits at supermarket checkouts to see that.
By the way—I can’t believe how many otherwise intelligent people read those rags. I really can’t. Some do it openly. Others try to hide it (behind a copy of Newsweek, or if they’re really smart, The Economist or Harvard Business Review)...but will end up admitting it if you ask them outright.
"I...uh...like to see what’s going on."
Marketing research confirms it time and again: People are fascinated by celebrities. It’s almost an addiction for many.
Is it any wonder that the NBA has embraced the concept?
Even I admit to being excited when I meet an NBA player, and I’m not a kid anymore. Maybe I don’t have any right to judge the People people. They are me.
But sports figures are...uh...more relevant to the world than Brittney Spears, right?
I keep telling myself that. Somehow, I’m not convinced.
ESPN propels individual flash into hypergear.
You’ll never see a great defensive sequence by multiple players on the Plays of the Week. You won’t see the guy in the sharp suit seated at the desk in front of the camera say, “Wow! Look at that perfect screen! Boo-ya!” or “That was a great double pick, wasn’t it? Restaurant quality.”
You won’t see the steal that led to the pass that led to the dunk. We don’t want to see how the firecracker was made. We want to see the final explosion.
It's human nature. We’re told that if good news sold newspapers or drove media ratings, we'd get it ’til the cows came home.
It doesn’t. We don’t.
Can you imagine Slam trying to market itself with a fold-out diagram of a great defensive play—complete with circles and arrows?
Yawn.
We want it simple. We want it straight to the point. We want the shot of the dunk at the moment of maximum impact.
Smile—you’ve just been posterized! We want the explosion.
11 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Dave Finocchio about 1 year ago
I think this team has two things going for it from a teamwork standpoint:
1. None of these three guys are jerks.
2. This is the last "non-Gary Payton" shot for all of them. E.i. - the next three season will be the last three seasons that Garnett, Pierce or Allen will be able to contribute to a team as a star. Urgency does wonders.
I really think that Rondo is the big question here. He has to do three things: penetrate and finish, find open jump shooter, and keep his turnovers down. If he can take care of the ball and get defenses to collapse on his drives (on a regular basis), this team will be dynamite offensively.
Defensively, Rivers has two outstanding defenders in Garnett and Rondo. I think there should be a lot of pressure on his shoulders to get the other guys playing solid team defense. For example, the best players on the best teams in the East (James, Wade, Hamilton, Arenas) play the 2-3 position. If the Celtics want to compete in the playoffs, they'll either have to come up with clever schemes (Lebron, Hamilton) or ask a lot of Rajon (Wade and Arenas). Thoughts?
Edit Comment Cancel
Thomas Halzack about 1 year ago
Hey Dave.
So. We have you on the 'Celtic dream comes true' bandwagon, eh? J/K
I like that ...."non Gary Payton shot". Very true. It's a legit group in the wheelhouse of their best years.
You're point about Rondo driving is right on. That'll be mentioned in part two.
As far as guarding the East's swing stars..that's what Posey is here for. And Pierce says he's up for more D this year - against 2s as well as 3s. He is really trimming down to his college weight (230 lbs)from what I read. That's about 10-15 lbs lighter than he has been playing at. It sounds like he really going to take defense seriously.
It will be interesting to see what happens defensively. They got the guy (Tom Thibodeau) I hoped they would, once I realized what kind of a defensive stud coach he was. Doc needs him pretty badly, IMO.
They say that teams take on the personality of their coaches -particularly the head coach.
I also think that the sense of urgency factor is a valid one. But that urgency has to translate into a smart game plan and maybe some sacrificing from each of them. Again, I think it is well within their power to make the adjustments necessary.
The wild card on the Celtics right now is Tony Allen. His defense is game changing if he is healthy.
Certainly this will be an interesting season.
thanks,
Tom
Edit Comment Cancel
Erick Blasco about 1 year ago
Those are five great points you brought up which usually end up being the difference in why certain teams fail at acheiving their goals. It's hard to see where the Celtics stack up in those categories because the team has so many players that have never played with each other.
There is no doubt that the Big 3 will trust one another because of their reputations...but will they trust Rondo if he starts making turnovers, or becomes ineffective against good defenses. Will they trust Posey if he reports out of shape? Will they trust Eddie House when House is jacking up treys any chance he gets?
If there is trust, then there shouldn't be any conflict.
The commitment aspect also falls to many of the lesser players rather than the superstars. Will Perkins be committed to playing better and more disciplined defense? Will Rondo commit himself to learning how to make perfect decisions on the run, and make perfect simple passes so the Celtics offense can run effectively?
Honestly though, I don't really see the Celtics as one of those teams that has trust and character issues and isn't on the same page. Aside from Rondo, the biggest question marks the Celtics have involves the specific skills, rather than the make-up, of the Celtic players.
Edit Comment Cancel
Erick Blasco about 1 year ago
And you mentioned a really key part about how the individual player is hyped and celebrated more than the team. It's really one of the biggest problems with basketball today.
Part of the reason is the way the NBA needs to be marketed. Those team jerseys sell better when they have a name on the back, and team sneakers aren't as marketable as a superstar's sneaker line. To promote those jerseys and sneakers, the NBA must market and advertise the players that would sell the best. And since all fans would much rather associate themselves with a spectacular dunk than, say, a cut that results in a teammate picking up a layup, individual accomplishments and skills with ball are lauded much more than unskilled talents like boxing out and setting screens.
This is a neccessary evil.
The bigger problem is that the NBA media does such a poor job of educating fans on why certain things happen on a basketball court. For example, NFL announcers will always point out key blocks on a long run, or a crisp route that is run, or what a quarterback saw when he threw to a target. Basically, the announcers will look off the ball to tell you why a play was successful, and will tell you what players are thinking when they make decisions.
Too many NBA announcers are either schills for their team, or have no interest in looking off the ball. Same thing with nearly all of the writers. Because of that fact, the deeper aspects of basketball never get relayed to the NBA fan, so the fan is left to only judge players by his stats and his skillset with the ball.
I'm sure that if the media did a better job educating fans, and looked beyond simple stats in analysing a team/player, then fans will be more aware of the fact that basketball is a complex team game, instead of a game solely played by collections of individuals.
Edit Comment Cancel
Thomas Halzack about 1 year ago
Erick,
Thanks for your responses. I can tell that you have thought about these issues before.
The Celtics 17 board has been lucky enough to have drawn a core group of intelligent posters and we've batted these issues around from time to time. Though solid fans all, there is a general disenchantment with the NBA today. Part of the unhappiness lies with some of what we are talking about. The referee scandal opens up another whole can of worms and fuels a fire that says the NBA is doing it wrong on a number of very big issues.
One poster said that Ultimate Fighting out drew an NBA finals play-off game one night this year. So there are ongoing questions about the wisdom of the philosophy of marketing in the David Stern era. While it could be argued he has been quite successful generally, and has done a truly wonderful job of internationalizing the success of the game of basketball - it could also be argued that he has marketed the US game into a corner, so to speak.
That's where your comment about showcasing individual skills is a necessary evil comes in. It may be. Some would argue it doesn't have to marketed that way. The ESPN factor is huge in this regard as well.
You can make a broader argument that TV news has done the same thing over the last 20 years and longer. Sound bites replace real content. Even mainstream news magazines like Time and Newsweek used to be much meatier in their content. Articles weren't reduced to one and two pagers. Take a look at a Time or Newsweek from the 60s or even 70s. There is quite a difference in content and presentation. Today, even they have genuflected at the altar of pop culture. You would have never seen Madonna or Brittney Spears on their covers in the decades I mentioned.
Now the counter argument is that they are giving us what we want to see. It appears to be a valid argument on the surface. I don't buy that. It is that whole 'circle of life' type of thinking that says - we buy what we like, so they give us what we will buy. Instant ratings rule. They are selling to the lowest common denominator. That is fine for some. But I think we should be given mainstream America more credit than the media does.
We live in the age of instant answers. It is even a problem with our capitalistic system - mainly the stock corporation. They are driven by the quarterly number. Long term decisions are always managed by short term numbers. It is not a good thing, IMO.
But, returning to your comments.....I agree that a concerted effort by NBA announcers to bring the the more subtle nuances of the game to the attention of the watching/listening fan would be a good idea.
As far as the names on the jerseys, I'm sure sure you are right. But I would agree with a Doc Rivers comment at one of the recent signings' press conferences, when one of the new Celtics held up the jersey with his name showing towards the cameras and the other held up his jersey the 'Celtic' side showing to the front. Doc said, "The name on the back (Celtics) is more important than the name on the front."
Regarding trust and team dysfunctions, I totally believe this group will figure things out. As you say, the big three are not stupid and they have a lot to lose prestige wise as well as careerwise if this effort doesn't eventually get them to a title series. Motivation is high. But there are still 29 other teams that don't care what your goals are. They have goals, motivations and dreams of their own. At least 6-7 of those teams can co something about it.
Thanks for thoughts - as always.
regards,
Tom
Edit Comment Cancel
Frank Zachary about 1 year ago
Like most things in life, the real problem with the NBA begins with the people who run the league.
David Stern is a puppeteer for the corporations who own the NBA. Plain and simply, he will do whatever is best for ratings. He cares nothing for the integrity of the sport of basketball nor all the history that his league is currently stamping out of existence.
In the old days, few guys could dunk. In the old days, everyone could hit a 10 foot jumper. In the old days, there was no 3 point line, no hundred million dollar shoe deals, and no Ron Artest.
Now?
-Guys can dunk and guys can drill threes and can't do much in between.
-The league's top players care about lining their pockets instead of winning championships.
-Screens are missed with reckless abandon because they aren't linked to astronomical salaries.
-Fights with other players over pride have been replaced by fights with fans over nothing at all.
-The league has been corrupted by crooked officials.
-Fundamentals have been traded in for Creatine and other performance-enhancing substances by the average player.
-Athletic attire which was thought to maximize performance on the court has been replaced with more "stylistic" trends (David Stern tried to put a stop to this, but because of $ not because of dignity...)
But in the end: it's not the NBA. It's the world. Just like everything in the world today, media elites and corporate thieves have stolen our way of life from us and told us what to watch, what to buy, and what to think.
They tell us that three star players will reverse the fortunes of a previously terrible team, and we eat it up. It doesn't occur to anyone that it was not just Magic or Bird that made those magnificent squads what they were that the Lakeshow and Celts wouldn't have been champions without Dennis Johnson and Michael Cooper.
Forgive me for saying this, but I don't see anyone comparable to Michael Cooper on the Celtics current roster. I see three stars and nine guys who are mediocre at best and nothing in between. As they say: a sign of the times...
This is not to offend Kevin Garnett or Ray Allen, who all things considered are pretty classy guys. But people need to start remembering what used to make NBA basketball the sport that it was...
I'll tell you this: it wasn't just dunks.
Edit Comment Cancel
Erick Blasco about 1 year ago
The TV News part brings in another simple fact that ties into the NBA. Nowadays, the news and the NBA are both sold as entertainment, and are judged by how entertaining they are instead of their content. Too many fans expect basketball games to be purely for their entertainment, and since wide open offenses, dunks, three's, blocked shots, and steals are much more aesthetically pleasing and easier to look for than defensive rotations, many fans, again, judge players and teams simply by those contexts.
It it obvious that the entertainment aspect is one reason why fans love the Suns so much and can't stand the Spurs. When the Suns play it is so entertaining to watch, and the Spurs seem inferior because they don't concentrate on spectacular individual plays. So when a team like Phoenix loses to the Spurs in the playoffs, fans become disenchanted with the league because they can't comprehend how a team like the Spurs can be so good.
If more media members explained why the Spurs are so good at doing what they do, and even looked at the more subtler aspects about teams like the Suns---their spacing, the way they fill lanes, their quickness into passing lanes resulting in fast breaks---then fans can have a much deeper appreciation for the NBA.
Because right now, because of the way the game is marketed and the sportscenter phenomena, most NBA fans are never taught what to look for.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dave Finocchio about 1 year ago
I think I agree with most of what you're saying, but let's get a little more specific.
I would argue that SportsCenter and highlight shows in general are and have been responsible for most of the perceptions of what's entertaining. Too many people grew up forming their impressions of Vince Carter's of the world in 10 second clips without ever watching them play a full basketball game. If we're going to do things that way, they should also see highlights of Bruce Bowen covering an offense players eyes with his hands while moving at 15 miles an hour...but that's another story.
On the flip side, I do think that most of the color commentators for TNT and ESPN (as well as espn.com writers) are pretty good in terms of the "what NBA fans are taught to look for" mantra. I hear a lot of praise for the Spurs in these circles...and the "Suns mania" comes more from the fans.
Or maybe it's not the media's fault and NBA fans are just stupid?
Edit Comment Cancel
Zander Freund about 1 year ago
Here's my take on the "why are dunks so focused on by fans" question. I essentially see it as equal parts nature and nurture.
For starters, fans are indeed "stupid" (superficial would be a better word) a Dominque Wilkins throwdown is more naturally exciting to them then watching Stockton/Malone run a pick and roll to perfection. Like Thomas said: "We don t want to see how the firecracker was made. We want to see the final explosion."
On the other hand, both media networks and the league itself have indeed nurtured the public to see certain aspects of the game as "entertaining." I have an ancient VHS tape in my bedroom titled "Rams, Slams, and Jams." The video, as horrible as it is, shows an assortment of slam dunks from the 70's and early 80's, before the NBA got hugely popular.
I'm guessing top-flight market executives weren't working for either the NBA or this video company, constantly gauging the opinions of the public. But the people who made the video instrinsically knew somehow that those who bought it would want to see such a video more than they would a video called "Picks, Passes, and Effective Movement Without the Ball."
Or, consider this: during the all-star game, how come we have a dunk contest, rather than a "best defense" contest? While the logistics of the latter would be difficult, it surely could be pulled off. You could have Adonal Foyle dribble the ball down the court and see which defensive phenom could strip it from his hands the fastest.
But there is no such contest at the all-star game. And, beyond Magic Johnson's do-it-yourself version, there are no NBA videos that stress fundamentals.
In essence, it's a circular process. The typical fan with his short attention span and constant search for "excitement" in life is more naturally drawn to the dunk. The NBA and media then focus in on the dunk, heightening it's importance in the eyes of the fan. The end result is that the "little things" get more or less left out of the spotlight.
As Dave points out, there are many color commentators that do stress the fundamentals (i.e. Bill Walton). But as long as the gang at Sportscenter puts dunks on the plays of the week, the casual fans will take little notice. The fans who actually watch the games on a regular basis care a lot more about the little things, as do the hardcore analysts. But the casual fans just want to see dunks and that's what the NBA and the media gives them.
What it comes down to is that casual fans simply need to watch more basketball. If they watched games on a regular basis, they would see how much more there is to putting together a winning franchise beyond locating players who can do a reverse dunk and have huge starpower. They'd see the importance of effective screens, of moving without the ball, of defense, of consistency, and of teamwork.
But the reality of the situation is that the majority of people watching Sportscenter every night don't follow the NBA that closely. And thus, they care more about the superstar potential crammed into the Celtics roster than the ability for such a roster to work effectively with one another as a unit.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
As i see it they have to trust eachother or they will be in the same situation they were in with there previous teams. There going to have teamwork because there older and you're not putting a bunch of young superstars who only worry about one thing and that is stats. But be serious there's no reason to write a whole page about this. Lets be real you might as wel give them the championship because i say the only team that's contending with them is phoneix and they have no chance.
Edit Comment Cancel
Thomas Halzack about 1 year ago
Good thoughts by all. I think there is some truth in much of what's been said here.
Frank - great point about Dennis Johnson and Michael Cooper.
A thought that crosses my mind is....are we letting the fan off the hook here?
Alexander makes some amusing but good points. The fan determines what he will pay for and that determines what 'product' will be made, doesn't it?
Still, the circular aspects of marketing are true, IMHO, though I've debated that with many people over time. I do argue that marketing helps shape what is news and what is popular. Other don't see it that way.
'Anonymous' is even more optimistic than I am. I think this Celtic team will be formidable. But there are a few other teams that will have as good answers as to why they might be world champions as any other.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.