Tuesday, December 19, 2006

On Hoops

1. As the resident Knicks fan on BSD, I have very mixed feelings about what happened at The Garden on Saturday night against the Denver Nuggets.

First, I’m annoyed that 24 hours after posting an optimistic piece about the Knicks, they make headlines in a negative story.

Second, I agree that getting blown out is never an excuse to resort to flagrant fouls. As Mighty, Gutsy, and others have pointed out, if you want to get tough, do so in the first half or in the third quarter, when you’re still in the game. Flagrant fouls with two minutes to go is the action of a sore loser.

Third, despite the unpleasantness, I’m not sorry it happened. For any Knicks fan, nay, for any NBA fan that came of age during 1980’s, rough, physical play – even the stuff that might be called cheap or dirty – has always been a part of the game. That does not excuse, justify, or otherwise condone fighting in any way, shape, or form. After all, this isn’t hockey, where violence is (or was) glorified and marketed by offering paychecks to unskilled hacks for their pugilistic talents. This is still basketball. But it’s still a physical game and very much a contact sport. Fights will happen from time to time and that’s just a reality. And as a Knicks fan who grew up watching Pat Ewing, Charles Oakley, Anthony Mason, John Starks, Mark Jackson, Derek Harper, Greg Anthony, Charlie Ward, Chris Childs, Larry Johnson, and Latrell Sprewell, playing with a kind of toughness and physicality has always been a part of Orange-and-Blue basketball. That the Knicks have lost their rough and tough identity over the past several seasons has been one of the big reasons why I (and many Knicks fans like me) have had trouble identifying with the team in recent years.

Like I said, I don’t condone what happened. It’s never good to see a fight and it’s especially bad to see a fight spill off the court and into the stands where the paying public may be harmed. But George Karl didn’t come into The Garden with clean hands and he has spent the past several months antagonizing Isiah Thomas. For a guy who has a resume spanning 18 seasons’ worth of underachievement, turmoil, and feuding, he may want to tone down the act just a bit.

2. So Iverson was finally traded, interestingly enough, to the aforementioned Denver Nuggets. Philly gets Andre Miller for another couple of seasons, Joe Smith’s expiring contract, and Denver’s two first round draft picks in the June draft. Denver gets a feisty, determined, intense, hard-working (in games, at least) guy who also happens to be a tremendous ball-hog.

I don’t buy the argument that Iverson’s never shared the ball because he never had anyone to share with. Sure, he never played with All-Stars. But I’m not approaching the argument from the “he’s a bad teammate” standpoint. I’m merely saying that his talents lie in scoring and dominating the basketball. To play any other way would diminish his impact on the game and hence to negate his true worth. For that reason, Iverson is a tragically flawed and tragic player. He can win games on his own but he can never truly play within a team system.

I don’t see how he and Carmelo Anthony can coexist as teammates starting next month, or for the two years they’ll be together in Denver. I don’t see how two scoring prodigies can play on the same team without one player deferring to the other. I know Iverson is a driven player, one who wants to win very badly. But I think sometimes that’s the tragedy of life – the one thing we want most is sometimes unattainable because of our own shortcomings. If Iverson can find a way to play without the ball in his hands, maybe Denver can figure this out. But he hasn’t figured it out so far and I tend to believe that Hall of Famers can’t reinvent themselves overnight...

No comments: