NBA Fans In 2010: The Worst Arguments
At any given point in sports history, there will be differing opinions on all things sports. These arguments are prevalent in the NBA today, just as much as they were in previous decades. This article seeks to explore some of the worst arguments made by NBA fans today, presented in no particular order or ranking.
These arguments come up all of the time when we discuss hoops with our friends and enemies, fathers and brothers, and anyone else who engages in following the NBA.
If you do not agree with my arguments, feel free to criticize them. If you wish to include annoying arguments that you hear from time to time, feel free to include them in the comments section below. I now present to you my compilation of the worst arguments made by NBA fans today!
Note: The argument shown in this page's photo will not be addressed because it has been proven wrong, simple and plain.
Dwight Howard Doesn’t Need a Jumper And/Or Post Moves
1 of 6You may be thinking this is a joke, but I have actually heard this argument before numerous times. One instance really rings a bell with me. I was coaching a basketball camp, and in between court time the fellow coaches and I watched the Magic-Hawks series from last year.
We were talking about Dwight Howard, and I said: “Imagine how great Howard would be if he had a 10-foot jumper and some more post moves.” A fellow coach turned to me and said, “Are you kidding? Look at how big the guy is, he can just live off of dominating inside.” I chose to not respond, and let reality do the talking for me.
Case in point: Magic-Celtics series in the next round. The Magic regularly thrive off of ball movement which is centered on Dwight Howard’s ability to draw doubles. This allows one man to be open, normally on the three-point line or for an outside shot. This is the Magic’s bread and butter. When people say that the Magic live and die by the three, they are implying that they will at some point begin to miss their threes. The main worry for the Magic, in fact, is Dwight facing single coverage and thus no threes being available at all!
If Dwight were able to score consistently with 10-foot range (no GRAND feat, whatsoever) and an even mediocre array of post moves, two options would be available. The first option would involve teams being forced to double Dwight, which would allow the Magic to do what they do best. The other option would be for a team to single cover Dwight, which, with Dwight’s newly acquired post moves and jumper, would allow Dwight to put up significant scoring numbers.
Another backing to this argument is the fact that Dwight trained with Hakeem Olajuwon this past summer. Most of what they worked on involved various post moves that will free him open for finishes down low or short-range jumpers. Dwight knows that he needs these post moves, and to add at least some range to his offensive game. If even Dwight admits it, then we are kidding ourselves if we think it is unnecessary.
One more point to add on here, and it has to do with Shaquille O’Neal.
Shaquille put up scoring numbers in the high 20s as a center in the early years of the 2000’s, but people made the argument that Shaq was lacking in skill and simply dominated inside based on his size. We can see, in Howard, a guy who is relatively as large as Shaquille but struggles to average even 20 points per game as a franchise player.
LeBron James Isn’t “Skilled” Enough
2 of 6
LeBron may be the most talented player in the league. However, as the Kobe-LeBron debate wanes on, those supporting LeBron as a more talented NBA player continuously have to hear the argument that LeBron isn’t “skilled” enough. This argument is inherently flawed.
The first flaw with this argument is the fact that “skill” is ambiguously defined. Those who argue that Kobe is more “skilled” than LeBron are mostly pointing to the fact that Kobe has an arsenal of moves to free him for jump shots, and that Kobe has a better jump shot than LeBron.
Jump shots are only one factor of the many skills required to be a great basketball player. I liken this to the physically attractive person vs. intelligence debate, and I apologize for completely oversimplifying the argument here but it is a useful analogy.
What drive does a physically beautiful person have to work hard in school and pursue knowledge? Everything is handed to them on a silver platter, for the most part, and therefore they don’t NEED to pursue intelligence (which forces me to give major props to all the good looking people out there who are doctors, lawyers and the like).
Most “non-beautiful” people, however, need to use their intelligence and knowledge in order to make money and have their way, as they cannot rely on their looks.
Now, for arguments sake, let’s link this analogy to the Kobe-LeBron “skills” debate. Let’s face it; if LeBron’s basketball talent were a woman, it would be Bar Rafaeli. LeBron has the athleticism where he can get shots at the rim virtually on demand, and is thus less reliant on jump shots.
Kobe’s talent, on the other hand, can be likened to Quentin Tarantino. Sure, he’s no beauty, but he uses knowledge and skills to attain what he wants and needs. Kobe has been worn down by years in the NBA, and his athleticism has taken a hit. He needs a jump shot and the ability to free himself for jump shots if he ever wants to be able to score. He has no choice, while LeBron still has the option of athleticism.
To add to this, LeBron actually does have a fairly legitimate jumper (please watch the first round of the playoffs last year if you do not believe me). The point here is that in the same way intelligence is not often demanded or required from physically good looking people, jump shots are not as often demanded or required from LeBron James.
The second flaw with this argument is that LeBron is, in fact, extremely skilled. He is one of the top passers in the league, a great rebounder, ball handler, defender, shot blocker, actually has a pretty good but streaky jump shot, and is great at penetrating the gaps of a defense (I am not saying LeBron is better than Kobe at all of these things, but he is great at them, nonetheless).
Those who argue that LeBron is less skilled than Kobe are disregarding the fact that skill is more than just jump shooting and outside scoring.
I do believe that LeBron is more talented than Kobe, but Kobe is a better player.
The main reason that Kobe is better than LeBron doesn’t have to do with tangible skills, at all. It has to do with his basketball IQ, obsession with winning (or fear of losing), leadership and other intangible factors. Those who argue that Kobe is better because LeBron isn't skilled are arguing the wrong aspect of why Kobe is better.
Well At Least...He Isn’t a Rapist!
3 of 6
Whenever you say something positive about Kobe, or argue that Kobe is a better player than someone else, there is always at least one person who goes on to call Kobe a rapist, undermining all of his basketball accomplishments. There are issues with this argument.
First off, it has been shown that Kobe did not molest the girl, but that it was with consent that the two had sex. The girl who accused Kobe of such an act was shown to be mentally unbalanced, and to have accused men of this before to no avail.
When a Kobe fan makes this point clear, the Kobe hater will go on to say, “well Kobe cheated on his wife, so he’s a jerk.” What a dumb argument.
JFK cheated on his wife with many women, as did Bill Clinton, Larry King, and numerous other high profile, respected, and powerful men. In fact, a pattern can be shown of many powerful men cheating on their respective wives. Are we going to undermine the significant actions of these individuals just because of their inability to control sexual desire? Of course we won’t (note: I do not condone adultery). They will be considered bad future mates, and the like, but it doesn't change their impact on the world.
Finally, even if Kobe had 'raped' the girl, he would still be one of the 10 greatest players of all-time (although maybe not recognized as such).
All in all, the Kobe-rape argument has no place in NBA discussion.
LeBron Couldn’t Win In Cleveland
4 of 6The idea that LeBron couldn’t win in Cleveland with the roster they had at the time has been widely accepted. I, however, feel that this is a weak argument. Sure, LeBron didn’t have the optimal or ideal roster in Cleveland, but winning in Cleveland was definitely possible.
If all these ESPN sportswriters knew all along that LeBron couldn’t win in Cleveland, why did they rank them as preseason favorites (even in the season after they were ‘upset’ by the Magic in the conference finals)? How was LeBron able to reach the NBA Finals in 2007 with a squad that had a less-talented LeBron and less evident chemistry than his 2009-2010 squad? This is all a little bit fishy to me.
Yes, LeBron had to shoulder the load in Cleveland, but they did have a pretty good line-up, to be honest. It was solid enough of a rotation for them to win, if their star was performing.
Let’s face it, LeBron carried the team to the No. 1 preseason record, an absolute first-round dominance, and then LeBron individually faltered in the second round to the Celtics, causing the entire team to collapse. LeBron and his supporters have no right to blame the rest of the Cleveland roster, when we had already accepted the roster as sub-par and still thought Cleveland should have won.
Again, I do not necessarily think that LeBron should have stayed in Cleveland. In fact, I think the best choice for him was the Bulls. That being said, I think that it is unfair to blame Cleveland for LeBron not having a ring thus far in his career, as it was LeBron (who knew and accepted his role in Cleveland, and has been shown to be able to win games by himself, here and here) who failed to perform in last season’s second round.
Phil Jackson Has Just Been Lucky By Getting Great Players
5 of 6
Well, yeah, of course! What kind of mediocre team is going to win an NBA championship? Red Auerbach, K.C. Jones, Gregg Popovich, Chuck Daly and all other successful NBA coaches had great players on their rosters as well.
This argument is quite easy to address. We must face the fact that NBA championship teams always require great players and teams, and the coach’s role is to serve as a facilitator of these great players. Phil Jackson has optimized the talent given to him by continuously challenging his players, having great organizational skills and bringing spirituality into the mix, just to name a few factors.
Any coach that could rank ahead of Phil Jackson would also have had great players as well, so fans must look at both sides of the story in this case.
If He Played Today, He Wouldn't Be Any Good!
6 of 6
Some NBA fans, particularly Kobe fans, take things a little bit too far and claim that if Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Michael Jordan played in today’s NBA, they would not fare as well. This is a relativist argument, meaning that you are trying to place someone into a different era relative to their own era (and, as we know in the NBA’s case, different eras differ significantly in quality of basketball). I hope to debunk this argument, as it is probably my least favorite on the entire list.
Ever heard of evolution?
Well, it’s still occurring. This is why Wilt Chamberlain was the only guy his size in the 60’s, and today seven-footers are nothing special at all. This is why players have become progressively more athletic from decade to decade.
If you were to insert Larry Bird from 1984 into the NBA today, of course he wouldn’t be as good. However, if you gave him the technologically advanced NBA training of today, and if he were as athletically evolved as many players today, he would probably excel with his level of basketball IQ. The same arguments can be made for Kareem, Magic and other NBA Hall of Famers.
It is, admittedly, more difficult to make this argument for players in the 1950’s, 1960’s, and early 1970’s, because the style of play differed significantly back then. Most NBA fans can agree on the fact that basketball in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s has not differed as significantly. This makes it difficult to compare Bill Russell to players today.
Another problem with this argument is that Michael Jordan has seemingly disproven it. Michael Jordan dominated in the 90’s, and many argue that he would not fare as well today. Well, Jordan played, as an old man to NBA standards, in the early 2000’s, and averaged more than 20 points per game. In addition, if you look at his highlight compilations, he is performing athletic acts in the 1990’s that are rarely performed even in today’s NBA.
This argument is ambiguous and hypothetical, and cannot be proven. So please, leave it alone.
