Finding the "face" of the NBA
Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:52 pm
These days, debate reigns over whom is the player of the current generation. The NBA seems to be pushing anyone and everyone as the marquee player, the face of the league. So far, it's had mixed results. While the whole issue of best in the league has hardly been clear cut and objective throughout time, the last two eras have featured players that a clear majority agreed were the absolute best the NBA had to offer, with most of them making promoting the league seem effortless...true superstars in the sports world.
Today's league features many brilliant athletes and some truly standout players. Yet at the same time, its stars don't seem to have the same effect, the same kind of impact. At the very least, it's not so easy to nominate the league's top three players nor decide who is the top draw, the player synonymous with the NBA. I thought I'd take a look at that, Dr P style.
WHY?
Sharp transition between eras; the lockout
The transition between the 90s and the current era was quite abrupt, thanks in part to the lockout in 1998/99 but also the sudden retirement and/or decline of the prominent players of the mid to late 80s through the 90s. Michael Jordan, the league's biggest draw and for so long considered by most to be NBA player numero uno, left the game after the Bulls won the 1998 championship.
Players like Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing began to slow down due to injuries and accepted lesser roles...Pippen, Ewing and Olajuwon were traded after spending more than a decade with the teams that they'd played for since day one of their NBA careers. There was very little "passing of the torch" so to speak. One minute, the 90s guys were on top of the mountain, the next there was a bunch of new faces.
The lockout also left a lot of fans bitter and cynical in regards to contract demands and the dark, greedy side of the NBA was exposed more than ever before. Which leads me to my next suggestion...
More money, less in common
Professional athletes have long stood apart from your average Joe Nine-to-Five with their endorsement deals, widespread fame and generous paycheques for an activity that many people take part in purely for enjoyment and the love of competition. Yet, it's perhaps harder to relate to pro athletes today since many of them are almost assured big bucks before they even find out who they're going to play for.
So assured of success in the NBA was LeBron James that his mother was able to buy him a Hummer for his birthday before he'd scored his first point for the Cavaliers. It's hard to identify with an 18 year old who's pencilled in to earn $90 million in endorsements before he's even proven himself in the big time. It's hard to relate to someone who's achieved lifetime financial security not only before they turn 20 but before they even start work! I'm just a little bit older than LeBron, I wish I could say the same thing.
With all the money flying around and the egos of professional athletes, it's very easy to portray today's top sportspeople as greedy and driven more by the green than the love of the game. An injury might mean the difference between a big payday and a run-of-the-mill payrise by NBA standards. Think of Michael Jordan's "love of the game" clause, Larry Bird's stubborn assertion of "I won' sit on the bench with no broken fingernail"...then compare it to some of todays players who pout and skip games or practices or opt out of contracts because $50 million isn't quite as good as $60 million. It's a little harder to paint such behaviour as heroic.
The media coverage & the NBA's Marketing Machine
This is the big one. First of all, the NBA is desperately trying to find that special, marquee player. They're pushing everyone they can, from Kobe to KG to Duncan to LeBron to Shaq to Wade to Amare...and that's just for starters. The problem is, a lot of the marketing is so forced, with the players crammed down our throats which means a lot of people are more likely to spit them back out. Rather than popular opinion coming to fruition organically, the NBA is manufacturing it. In today's society, with the anti-culture and anti-hero worship, that's doomed to fail.
The Internet is a big part of that. The Internet is the perfect breeding ground for anti-culture, since it gives everyone a voice, freedom of speech about pop culture, sports and entertainment is there for everyone to take advantage of and opinions are seldom censored. There's a feeling of folks on the Internet being more well-informed, more "in the know". Mainstream media outlets such as basketball magazines, especially those produced by the NBA, are dismissed as worthless drivel published only to promote the ideas of the league's suits in marketing. And to a certain extent, they may be right. However, just because an opinion is an alternative that goes against the norm doesn't necessarily make it more credible or more informed.
Beyond that, the increased interest in "muck-raking" means we're always looking for the negative side of athletes. Personal lives are picked apart and paraded for all to see, double standards are thrown about and we're always searching for the "truth", because the positive things that are printed couldn't possibly be the whole story...or the part worth focusing on.
Then of course you have the extent of media coverage. LeBron has been news since he was 16 years old. What does that mean? It means we already know his story. With Michael, Magic and Larry, they exploded onto the scene. Fans wanted to know more about them, and as biographies were published and biographical/highlight videos were produced we came to know the story of how they came to be NBA superstars. We already know LeBron's story, there is no mystery, no mystique.
Perhaps the worst aspect of the media is the hype. The "next-Whoever" fad has gotten way out of hand. Consider the Lakers/Nets game in which Kobe was "MJ reincarnated" and Kidd was "Magic reincarnated". Lofty praise, perhaps deserved but I don't think it helps. I think it's better that such performances are compared to battles of days gone by in a less direct way. That way, it could be compared to several great games throughout history instead of pigeon-holeing today's players as new versions of former greats.
Certainly, those comparisons are going to be made. Michael Jordan was compared to Julius Erving when he came into the league but he soon found his own identity and was allowed to be his own person. All sorts of comparisons were made about him, even to players who didn't play the same position. His flu-ridden performance in Game 5 of the 1997 NBA Finals conjured up mentions of Larry Bird's courageous return to the court after sustaining a concussion in a playoff matchup with the Pacers in 1992, and Willis Reed giving his team a lift by limping out to play in Game 7 of the 1970 NBA Finals.
That's how the Nets/Lakers game should have been portrayed. Another great battle between two of the top players today, worthy of comparison to some great contests of yesteryear. Certainly, Kobe might have an air of Air about him and there might be some Magic in Kidd's play but by calling them the reincarnation of those two great players doesn't allow them to stand on their own as great players in their own right. By constantly forcing today's stars to fill their predecessor's shoes, they can't carve out their own niche in basketball lore.
Well, that's the Why...which brings us to...
WHO?
Who is the face of the NBA? Who can be the face of the NBA? There are several possible candidates, a few of which I'll examine...
Tim Duncan
His fundamentals are without a doubt worthy of measuring stick status; Duncan is generally considered to be the most fundamentally sound player in the league. His stats are impressive, his teams have been amongst the best since 1998 and have won the championship three times. He's not known for flashiness yet he can break out a highlight reel play without warning. He's easily a candidate for being the best player in the league.
At the same time, he's not necessarily the best choice. With the love of high-flying feats, Duncan's great play with solid fundamentals doesn't grab as much attention. While he's a nice guy by all accounts and even supposed to be a bit of a joker behind closed doors, his public image is of a very quiet person, which isn't a bad thing but isn't marketable either.
As great as they were basketball players, Michael and Magic were also charismatic. Larry Bird represented hard work and showed a personality that was likeable, yet at the same time brash and bold. Charles Barkley was a walking quote machine. It's easy to sell Duncan to the hardcore basketball fan but it's difficult to market him in the same way as a Jordan or Magic or Barkley.
Kobe Bryant
His talent is undeniable, his highlights are exciting, he's certainly tasted success and he's in a media capital. He's young, he's cocky, he's a definite draw...he's one of the best in the league. But can he work as the league's Biggest Name?
I say no, not because he's unworthy but simply because right now it's extremely difficult to sell him. Forget the whole rape allegations and what that's done to his image. Kobe anti-culture has been gathering steam for many years. He's been portrayed as being too cocky, spoiled, narcissistic and selfish. The problem is, he hasn't done much to refute those claims or show a lot of people otherwise.
One might say that's none of our business, that Kobe needn't open himself up for us to ponder and take in the "real him". Which is fine. But if that is his stance, then the image he has comes with the territory. Normally, he'd be the perfect marquee player. But there's too big a percentage of folks who just don't like him. Consider the backlash when Nike started easing him back into advertising with a magazine spread.
I was actually talking to Matthew about this not along ago, and he raised a great point in that the league needs its villains and Kobe certainly fits the bill with the strong anti-culture against him. But the NBA's top star needs to be the hero, not the villain. Kobe could be the hero, but right now there's too much negativity surrounding him - justified or unjustified, it makes little difference - for it to work, at least for now.
LeBron James
LeBron, like Kobe, is a gifted athlete with great basketball talent and a flair for the game that most of us love to see. His image is that of a humble young man, determined to succeed and live up to the reputation built upon the hype of his entrance into the NBA. He's likeable, spectacular, and very, very good.
The problem with LeBron? His teams haven't won much yet. His stats, while impressive, are not without parallel. That makes it hard for him to rise above other great players in the league, especially ones whose teams are enjoying more success. This year could be the difference.
The other killer for LeBron are the Jordan and Magic comparisons, from one of his dunks to a behind the back pass, right down to the number on his jersey and his numbers in the boxscores. It's likely that as soon as he reaches the next level, the comparisons are going to become more frequent and the bar is going to be raised a lot higher, very quickly.
He's probably the most likely candidate, but he's not perfect. Once the Cavaliers are firmly in place as one of the best teams in the league, he might become the player of the era.
Kevin Garnett
Highlight plays, great numbers, plenty of talent...and beyond that, how about redefining his position and opening doors for other players? KG's had a great impact on the game so far, even if his teams haven't won the ultimate prize and have been the victim of more than a couple of first round exits.
But it does come back to the team. Like LeBron, KG's status is often hampered by his team's lack of success (even though what he's accomplished in Minnesota is no mean feat). While LeBron can fall back on the fact he's only got two full seasons under his belt and his teams haven't been too spectacular, KG hasn't always been without help. Whether or not he deserves harsh criticism for any of the teams shortcomings is probably irrelevant. The first round exits do make him a harder sell.
Dwyane Wade
Like LeBron, Wade is in perfect position to be one of the league's top stars for years to come. He's young, his teams have looked good or greatly overachieved thanks to his play, his numbers are getting better, he's flashy, he hasn't done anything to draw the wrath of the public and he's going to keep getting better.
However, he's not quite there yet which means the NBA could very easily over-sell him. Forcing him down people's throats is not going to win the fans over. He's on the way, he might even be close to that level by the end of the year. But I think the NBA's marketing suits should tread very carefully with Flash.
Tracy McGrady
Another high-scoring, high-flying, talented player with an obvious fan following. The downside with T-Mac is that he too has been plagued by first round defeats, lottery-bound teams and questions about his selfishness and attitude. With his injury woes and the Rockets' subsequent struggles, it's easy to point out his important to his team. However, it's hard to market him while he's in street clothes (or the NBA's new idea of inactive player attire, anyhow).
Vince Carter
A few years and injuries ago, this would've been different. However, Vinsanity's stock has fallen even with his resurgence in New Jersey. He can excite fans with his aerial wizardry, but he's equally renowned for his seemingly fragile nature and annual injuries as he is for his thunderous and spectacular dunks.
The whole Toronto fiasco didn't help either. Nobody likes a whiner and that was the fallout from that whole situation. Taken out of context or not, his remarks about not trying rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Vince seems to be making up for lost time and his stock is rising, but the best player in the league, the top dog in the NBA? Nah...
Allen Iverson
AI is a diminutive but fierce warrior with a never-say-die attitude, a lot of heart, a lot of talent and he's come within three wins of an NBA championship. He's got the numbers, he's got scoring titles and MVP trophies to his name, he's a bonafide All-Star and he's popular.
So why doesn't he get the billing? The NBA just won't do it. NBA-Iverson relations might be a lot better than they once were, but in truth the NBA just doesn't want to risk promoting the "bad boy" elements of AI's persona. Plenty of players have tattoos, but not many have as much ink as Iverson. He's been much maligned by the media for all kinds of comments and incidents he's been involved in. The NBA will promote him, but they won't embrace him and hold him up like a Jordan, Magic or Bird.
Amare Stoudemire
Amare's going to be big, but he needs a couple more years at the level he was approaching last year to firmly establish himself as an elite player. A little more dominance on the boards and in his defensive stats and there won't be many questions about his ranking amongst the cream of the crop in today's league. But I think it's too soon right now.
Then there's plenty of other stars to round out the galaxy. Carmelo could soon be up there with James and Wade, though he's fallen behind somewhat and he too has a bit of an anti-following brewing. There are plenty of legitimate stars in the league: Paul Pierce, Steve Francis, Jason Kidd, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Baron Davis, Ben Wallace, Yao Ming, Jermaine O'Neal, Elton Brand, Pau Gasol, Stephon Marbury, and Ray Allen to name but a few great/All-Star calibre players. There's plenty of rising stars, too numerous to mention.
The problem is, they're either too early or too late in their careers to be pushed heavily right now. Shaq for example would be a perfect candidate, but at the same time he's bridging the gap between two eras. He's been a great player in two distinct eras, making it somewhat difficult to nominate him as the player of a generation.
The NBA would appear to be in good hands when it comes to star power. They've got options if they want stars the magnitude of the Big Three of the 80s/90s, though a couple of them might not be perfect for the role. One of the main problems is that the NBA's marketing tactics have gotten a bit sterile, a bit panicky, somewhat forced. Whoever becomes the star of stars in today's NBA, they will need to earn that mantle "organically".
DO WE NEED ONE?
A final thought: do we really need one or two outstanding players in the NBA landscape, when there's plenty of individuals who can entertain us? Is it appropriate in a team sport?
I think it is. Looking back through NBA history, you can easily associate the prominent names with the eras they played in. I think it's important for each era to have its own special players. I also think it's important that fans can continue to associate with the stars of today, and tomorrow, since that's what keeps the enthusiasm in the game. So long as the NBA doesn't force the issue, I think eventually we'll sort out the superstar hierarchy in today's NBA.
Today's league features many brilliant athletes and some truly standout players. Yet at the same time, its stars don't seem to have the same effect, the same kind of impact. At the very least, it's not so easy to nominate the league's top three players nor decide who is the top draw, the player synonymous with the NBA. I thought I'd take a look at that, Dr P style.
WHY?
Sharp transition between eras; the lockout
The transition between the 90s and the current era was quite abrupt, thanks in part to the lockout in 1998/99 but also the sudden retirement and/or decline of the prominent players of the mid to late 80s through the 90s. Michael Jordan, the league's biggest draw and for so long considered by most to be NBA player numero uno, left the game after the Bulls won the 1998 championship.
Players like Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing began to slow down due to injuries and accepted lesser roles...Pippen, Ewing and Olajuwon were traded after spending more than a decade with the teams that they'd played for since day one of their NBA careers. There was very little "passing of the torch" so to speak. One minute, the 90s guys were on top of the mountain, the next there was a bunch of new faces.
The lockout also left a lot of fans bitter and cynical in regards to contract demands and the dark, greedy side of the NBA was exposed more than ever before. Which leads me to my next suggestion...
More money, less in common
Professional athletes have long stood apart from your average Joe Nine-to-Five with their endorsement deals, widespread fame and generous paycheques for an activity that many people take part in purely for enjoyment and the love of competition. Yet, it's perhaps harder to relate to pro athletes today since many of them are almost assured big bucks before they even find out who they're going to play for.
So assured of success in the NBA was LeBron James that his mother was able to buy him a Hummer for his birthday before he'd scored his first point for the Cavaliers. It's hard to identify with an 18 year old who's pencilled in to earn $90 million in endorsements before he's even proven himself in the big time. It's hard to relate to someone who's achieved lifetime financial security not only before they turn 20 but before they even start work! I'm just a little bit older than LeBron, I wish I could say the same thing.
With all the money flying around and the egos of professional athletes, it's very easy to portray today's top sportspeople as greedy and driven more by the green than the love of the game. An injury might mean the difference between a big payday and a run-of-the-mill payrise by NBA standards. Think of Michael Jordan's "love of the game" clause, Larry Bird's stubborn assertion of "I won' sit on the bench with no broken fingernail"...then compare it to some of todays players who pout and skip games or practices or opt out of contracts because $50 million isn't quite as good as $60 million. It's a little harder to paint such behaviour as heroic.
The media coverage & the NBA's Marketing Machine
This is the big one. First of all, the NBA is desperately trying to find that special, marquee player. They're pushing everyone they can, from Kobe to KG to Duncan to LeBron to Shaq to Wade to Amare...and that's just for starters. The problem is, a lot of the marketing is so forced, with the players crammed down our throats which means a lot of people are more likely to spit them back out. Rather than popular opinion coming to fruition organically, the NBA is manufacturing it. In today's society, with the anti-culture and anti-hero worship, that's doomed to fail.
The Internet is a big part of that. The Internet is the perfect breeding ground for anti-culture, since it gives everyone a voice, freedom of speech about pop culture, sports and entertainment is there for everyone to take advantage of and opinions are seldom censored. There's a feeling of folks on the Internet being more well-informed, more "in the know". Mainstream media outlets such as basketball magazines, especially those produced by the NBA, are dismissed as worthless drivel published only to promote the ideas of the league's suits in marketing. And to a certain extent, they may be right. However, just because an opinion is an alternative that goes against the norm doesn't necessarily make it more credible or more informed.
Beyond that, the increased interest in "muck-raking" means we're always looking for the negative side of athletes. Personal lives are picked apart and paraded for all to see, double standards are thrown about and we're always searching for the "truth", because the positive things that are printed couldn't possibly be the whole story...or the part worth focusing on.
Then of course you have the extent of media coverage. LeBron has been news since he was 16 years old. What does that mean? It means we already know his story. With Michael, Magic and Larry, they exploded onto the scene. Fans wanted to know more about them, and as biographies were published and biographical/highlight videos were produced we came to know the story of how they came to be NBA superstars. We already know LeBron's story, there is no mystery, no mystique.
Perhaps the worst aspect of the media is the hype. The "next-Whoever" fad has gotten way out of hand. Consider the Lakers/Nets game in which Kobe was "MJ reincarnated" and Kidd was "Magic reincarnated". Lofty praise, perhaps deserved but I don't think it helps. I think it's better that such performances are compared to battles of days gone by in a less direct way. That way, it could be compared to several great games throughout history instead of pigeon-holeing today's players as new versions of former greats.
Certainly, those comparisons are going to be made. Michael Jordan was compared to Julius Erving when he came into the league but he soon found his own identity and was allowed to be his own person. All sorts of comparisons were made about him, even to players who didn't play the same position. His flu-ridden performance in Game 5 of the 1997 NBA Finals conjured up mentions of Larry Bird's courageous return to the court after sustaining a concussion in a playoff matchup with the Pacers in 1992, and Willis Reed giving his team a lift by limping out to play in Game 7 of the 1970 NBA Finals.
That's how the Nets/Lakers game should have been portrayed. Another great battle between two of the top players today, worthy of comparison to some great contests of yesteryear. Certainly, Kobe might have an air of Air about him and there might be some Magic in Kidd's play but by calling them the reincarnation of those two great players doesn't allow them to stand on their own as great players in their own right. By constantly forcing today's stars to fill their predecessor's shoes, they can't carve out their own niche in basketball lore.
Well, that's the Why...which brings us to...
WHO?
Who is the face of the NBA? Who can be the face of the NBA? There are several possible candidates, a few of which I'll examine...
Tim Duncan
His fundamentals are without a doubt worthy of measuring stick status; Duncan is generally considered to be the most fundamentally sound player in the league. His stats are impressive, his teams have been amongst the best since 1998 and have won the championship three times. He's not known for flashiness yet he can break out a highlight reel play without warning. He's easily a candidate for being the best player in the league.
At the same time, he's not necessarily the best choice. With the love of high-flying feats, Duncan's great play with solid fundamentals doesn't grab as much attention. While he's a nice guy by all accounts and even supposed to be a bit of a joker behind closed doors, his public image is of a very quiet person, which isn't a bad thing but isn't marketable either.
As great as they were basketball players, Michael and Magic were also charismatic. Larry Bird represented hard work and showed a personality that was likeable, yet at the same time brash and bold. Charles Barkley was a walking quote machine. It's easy to sell Duncan to the hardcore basketball fan but it's difficult to market him in the same way as a Jordan or Magic or Barkley.
Kobe Bryant
His talent is undeniable, his highlights are exciting, he's certainly tasted success and he's in a media capital. He's young, he's cocky, he's a definite draw...he's one of the best in the league. But can he work as the league's Biggest Name?
I say no, not because he's unworthy but simply because right now it's extremely difficult to sell him. Forget the whole rape allegations and what that's done to his image. Kobe anti-culture has been gathering steam for many years. He's been portrayed as being too cocky, spoiled, narcissistic and selfish. The problem is, he hasn't done much to refute those claims or show a lot of people otherwise.
One might say that's none of our business, that Kobe needn't open himself up for us to ponder and take in the "real him". Which is fine. But if that is his stance, then the image he has comes with the territory. Normally, he'd be the perfect marquee player. But there's too big a percentage of folks who just don't like him. Consider the backlash when Nike started easing him back into advertising with a magazine spread.
I was actually talking to Matthew about this not along ago, and he raised a great point in that the league needs its villains and Kobe certainly fits the bill with the strong anti-culture against him. But the NBA's top star needs to be the hero, not the villain. Kobe could be the hero, but right now there's too much negativity surrounding him - justified or unjustified, it makes little difference - for it to work, at least for now.
LeBron James
LeBron, like Kobe, is a gifted athlete with great basketball talent and a flair for the game that most of us love to see. His image is that of a humble young man, determined to succeed and live up to the reputation built upon the hype of his entrance into the NBA. He's likeable, spectacular, and very, very good.
The problem with LeBron? His teams haven't won much yet. His stats, while impressive, are not without parallel. That makes it hard for him to rise above other great players in the league, especially ones whose teams are enjoying more success. This year could be the difference.
The other killer for LeBron are the Jordan and Magic comparisons, from one of his dunks to a behind the back pass, right down to the number on his jersey and his numbers in the boxscores. It's likely that as soon as he reaches the next level, the comparisons are going to become more frequent and the bar is going to be raised a lot higher, very quickly.
He's probably the most likely candidate, but he's not perfect. Once the Cavaliers are firmly in place as one of the best teams in the league, he might become the player of the era.
Kevin Garnett
Highlight plays, great numbers, plenty of talent...and beyond that, how about redefining his position and opening doors for other players? KG's had a great impact on the game so far, even if his teams haven't won the ultimate prize and have been the victim of more than a couple of first round exits.
But it does come back to the team. Like LeBron, KG's status is often hampered by his team's lack of success (even though what he's accomplished in Minnesota is no mean feat). While LeBron can fall back on the fact he's only got two full seasons under his belt and his teams haven't been too spectacular, KG hasn't always been without help. Whether or not he deserves harsh criticism for any of the teams shortcomings is probably irrelevant. The first round exits do make him a harder sell.
Dwyane Wade
Like LeBron, Wade is in perfect position to be one of the league's top stars for years to come. He's young, his teams have looked good or greatly overachieved thanks to his play, his numbers are getting better, he's flashy, he hasn't done anything to draw the wrath of the public and he's going to keep getting better.
However, he's not quite there yet which means the NBA could very easily over-sell him. Forcing him down people's throats is not going to win the fans over. He's on the way, he might even be close to that level by the end of the year. But I think the NBA's marketing suits should tread very carefully with Flash.
Tracy McGrady
Another high-scoring, high-flying, talented player with an obvious fan following. The downside with T-Mac is that he too has been plagued by first round defeats, lottery-bound teams and questions about his selfishness and attitude. With his injury woes and the Rockets' subsequent struggles, it's easy to point out his important to his team. However, it's hard to market him while he's in street clothes (or the NBA's new idea of inactive player attire, anyhow).
Vince Carter
A few years and injuries ago, this would've been different. However, Vinsanity's stock has fallen even with his resurgence in New Jersey. He can excite fans with his aerial wizardry, but he's equally renowned for his seemingly fragile nature and annual injuries as he is for his thunderous and spectacular dunks.
The whole Toronto fiasco didn't help either. Nobody likes a whiner and that was the fallout from that whole situation. Taken out of context or not, his remarks about not trying rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Vince seems to be making up for lost time and his stock is rising, but the best player in the league, the top dog in the NBA? Nah...
Allen Iverson
AI is a diminutive but fierce warrior with a never-say-die attitude, a lot of heart, a lot of talent and he's come within three wins of an NBA championship. He's got the numbers, he's got scoring titles and MVP trophies to his name, he's a bonafide All-Star and he's popular.
So why doesn't he get the billing? The NBA just won't do it. NBA-Iverson relations might be a lot better than they once were, but in truth the NBA just doesn't want to risk promoting the "bad boy" elements of AI's persona. Plenty of players have tattoos, but not many have as much ink as Iverson. He's been much maligned by the media for all kinds of comments and incidents he's been involved in. The NBA will promote him, but they won't embrace him and hold him up like a Jordan, Magic or Bird.
Amare Stoudemire
Amare's going to be big, but he needs a couple more years at the level he was approaching last year to firmly establish himself as an elite player. A little more dominance on the boards and in his defensive stats and there won't be many questions about his ranking amongst the cream of the crop in today's league. But I think it's too soon right now.
Then there's plenty of other stars to round out the galaxy. Carmelo could soon be up there with James and Wade, though he's fallen behind somewhat and he too has a bit of an anti-following brewing. There are plenty of legitimate stars in the league: Paul Pierce, Steve Francis, Jason Kidd, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Baron Davis, Ben Wallace, Yao Ming, Jermaine O'Neal, Elton Brand, Pau Gasol, Stephon Marbury, and Ray Allen to name but a few great/All-Star calibre players. There's plenty of rising stars, too numerous to mention.
The problem is, they're either too early or too late in their careers to be pushed heavily right now. Shaq for example would be a perfect candidate, but at the same time he's bridging the gap between two eras. He's been a great player in two distinct eras, making it somewhat difficult to nominate him as the player of a generation.
The NBA would appear to be in good hands when it comes to star power. They've got options if they want stars the magnitude of the Big Three of the 80s/90s, though a couple of them might not be perfect for the role. One of the main problems is that the NBA's marketing tactics have gotten a bit sterile, a bit panicky, somewhat forced. Whoever becomes the star of stars in today's NBA, they will need to earn that mantle "organically".
DO WE NEED ONE?
A final thought: do we really need one or two outstanding players in the NBA landscape, when there's plenty of individuals who can entertain us? Is it appropriate in a team sport?
I think it is. Looking back through NBA history, you can easily associate the prominent names with the eras they played in. I think it's important for each era to have its own special players. I also think it's important that fans can continue to associate with the stars of today, and tomorrow, since that's what keeps the enthusiasm in the game. So long as the NBA doesn't force the issue, I think eventually we'll sort out the superstar hierarchy in today's NBA.
Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:20 pm
hmm...interesting..ive never thought of who will actually be the "face" of this era
Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:28 pm
Hate it or Love it, I see the NBA really promoting LeBron in the near future even more as the face of the NBA... that is once the Cavs make some noise in the playoffs. That's my opinion anyways. Great article btw Andrew 
Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:55 pm
Great article, Andrew!
IMO it's between LeBron and KG. I'd go for Garnett. Basically just because he started the HS-to-NBA line, before him it was out of the question. LeBron, again, has made the best transition. So it's a choise between the initiator and the best to ever make the leap.
Both of them are THE all-around players, just lacking support from their teams. Garnett is still dealing with that, but LeBron is having a breakout season - the Cavs are stronger than ever and they are winning. If Lebron and the Cavs manage to get to the finals, he'd be the face of ths era.
And you're so right about the hype. I just hate it. That's why I hated Lebron in the beginning. All the next this and next that pissed me so off. Imagine what weight it put on the guy's shoulders. I'm glad he has been up to it and has shown that he'll be a great player in his own way. Not the next MJ, but one and only LeBron James.
IMO it's between LeBron and KG. I'd go for Garnett. Basically just because he started the HS-to-NBA line, before him it was out of the question. LeBron, again, has made the best transition. So it's a choise between the initiator and the best to ever make the leap.
Both of them are THE all-around players, just lacking support from their teams. Garnett is still dealing with that, but LeBron is having a breakout season - the Cavs are stronger than ever and they are winning. If Lebron and the Cavs manage to get to the finals, he'd be the face of ths era.
And you're so right about the hype. I just hate it. That's why I hated Lebron in the beginning. All the next this and next that pissed me so off. Imagine what weight it put on the guy's shoulders. I'm glad he has been up to it and has shown that he'll be a great player in his own way. Not the next MJ, but one and only LeBron James.
Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:07 pm
You typed them all? Man nice read... Face of the NBA
I dont know and am not really sure whether kobe and lebron are considered the same era...? But the face... It's really almost impossible to decide... Kobe? I think he can be, he has the good and the bad, has the rings... then missed the playoffs. Has the Phil Jackson opera happened, rape case... Everything. SO dramatic.
I dont know and am not really sure whether kobe and lebron are considered the same era...? But the face... It's really almost impossible to decide... Kobe? I think he can be, he has the good and the bad, has the rings... then missed the playoffs. Has the Phil Jackson opera happened, rape case... Everything. SO dramatic.
Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:26 pm
Yea, I'd go with toine as well. (jk)
In all seriousness, LeBron James will be the face of the NBA. Not only is he AMAZING but he's also a good guy with no real problems. Or they could go with 2 faces. Look at the 80s, it was the Larry vs Magic era...so I think Dwyane Wade vs LeBron James era will arrive soon..
Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:29 pm
Too lazy to read the whole of it (what else is new?) Pretty good question. Although I would've liked TD to be the face of the NBA, it'll never happen. THe face of the NBA is pretty much LeBron. He's everywhere. It could've been Kobe before the rape thing but after that the casual fan (I feel like I'm talking about wrestling) just sees Kobe as a rapist and nothing else.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:45 am
Damn cklitsie, I laughed so much with that picture 
The new faces are LeBron and Wade. They're young and exciting, and are already getting 3 MJ comparisons per game
The new faces are LeBron and Wade. They're young and exciting, and are already getting 3 MJ comparisons per game
Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:38 am
Andrew, you said it all. Charisma is the key, as well as playing in the Big Markets. LeBron will never cut it, unless he goes to NY, Philladelphia, LA, Detroit, Boston or Chicago. Those are the teams that the average mildly interested Baketball fan will know. You know the" Hey that's MIchael Jackson, eer... Jordan, didn't he play in the La Lakers?" kind of guys. Team recognition gets really hazy after that, and expansion didn't help.
Another good point is that every league needs it's villain. Boy have the Celtics played that role. You need a team to root against, because they're seamingly invincible. And you need a great player on that team. Like the Celtics in the 80's, damn good but less likeable than the all smiles and flair LA Lakers. The truly dislikeable guys like Laimbeer, Mahorn or Rodman are truly needed. If we're talking about an unlikeable superstar player, like Bryant, that's better: but you need some dominance from his team in order to really hate him, rather than pity him, and right now, Kobe isn't winning.
And you need identification. Bird vs Magic, the opposites relating to different people, both out of this world players, winners, great teams.
The point is I don't think any of nowadays players will ever become as recognizable as Magic, Bird or Jordan. Shaq is the closest, but still pretty far away. It will take time, the right situation and it will happen naturally, independently of all media hype.
Another good point is that every league needs it's villain. Boy have the Celtics played that role. You need a team to root against, because they're seamingly invincible. And you need a great player on that team. Like the Celtics in the 80's, damn good but less likeable than the all smiles and flair LA Lakers. The truly dislikeable guys like Laimbeer, Mahorn or Rodman are truly needed. If we're talking about an unlikeable superstar player, like Bryant, that's better: but you need some dominance from his team in order to really hate him, rather than pity him, and right now, Kobe isn't winning.
And you need identification. Bird vs Magic, the opposites relating to different people, both out of this world players, winners, great teams.
The point is I don't think any of nowadays players will ever become as recognizable as Magic, Bird or Jordan. Shaq is the closest, but still pretty far away. It will take time, the right situation and it will happen naturally, independently of all media hype.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:45 am
Great read man, you should put it up as an article or something in the front page.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:58 am
It's going to be difficult to replicate the personalities of the older NBA because of how academic the sport is now.
Back in the day players made up their own moves on the playground, like the Pearl & Clyde. Their styles were distinct and couldn't really be copied. People wanted to see that one particular guy play, and nobody else could substitute. Nowadays, as successful as someone as Billups is, i doubt if i'm going to see something from Billups (from an entertainment standpoint) that i haven't seen from a dozen other guards.
Nowadays, kids are taught fundamentals, the proper form on a jump shot & release, the proper way to dribble, the proper way to do an up & under, etc.. The poster child for being taught basketball the "right" way is Duncan, the poster child for making up moves as you go is Vince Carter, and the success of one versus the other is obvious.
Jordan was the last legend that really had a lot of creativity on his moves, i also think VC & Nash are quite creative but just not to the point of being legends.
Ultimately, i think this is why guys like Jason Williams were such big marketing successes despite a lack of actual impact...he was a personality.
Back in the day players made up their own moves on the playground, like the Pearl & Clyde. Their styles were distinct and couldn't really be copied. People wanted to see that one particular guy play, and nobody else could substitute. Nowadays, as successful as someone as Billups is, i doubt if i'm going to see something from Billups (from an entertainment standpoint) that i haven't seen from a dozen other guards.
Nowadays, kids are taught fundamentals, the proper form on a jump shot & release, the proper way to dribble, the proper way to do an up & under, etc.. The poster child for being taught basketball the "right" way is Duncan, the poster child for making up moves as you go is Vince Carter, and the success of one versus the other is obvious.
Jordan was the last legend that really had a lot of creativity on his moves, i also think VC & Nash are quite creative but just not to the point of being legends.
Ultimately, i think this is why guys like Jason Williams were such big marketing successes despite a lack of actual impact...he was a personality.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:06 am
good read
the nba needs to market the teams, not individual players
the nba needs to market the teams, not individual players
Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:13 am
Drex wrote:The new faces are LeBron and Wade. They're young and exciting
that sounds about right
Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:40 am
My take, the face of the NBA is: THE SPURS & PISTONS
The thing is, back in the days before the Jordan media frenzy, you associated players with the teams they played for and vice versa not the player and his sidekick(thus Jordan and the BULLS or Jordan and the JORDANAIRES). In the 80's when you said Lakers you knew Magic, Kareem, Worthy etc, or Celtics it was Bird, McHale, & Parish. The 90's brought about the whole STAR and Team, one on one image. When the Lakers battled the Pistons at the end of the 80's two years in a row it was about the teams, not so much players though they were significant it never really over shaodwed as much as in the 90's.
The 80's are probably better remembered as the decade of the Lakers and Celtic and because of the 90's Magic and Bird era. The 90's are all BULLS and ALL JORDAN. Despite Detroit, San Antonio and Houston winning atleast one championship title during that span.
When you think of the 70's if you only think of players it's because well, you don't know who won from year to year and the 60's it's like the Celtics were the NBA. Then you have Russell, Cousy, Havelichek and all those guys against Wilts and the rest of the NBA.
So, the face of the league since Jordan has been long gone now should be the best two teams who will probably battle it out again in the 2006 Finals.
The thing is, back in the days before the Jordan media frenzy, you associated players with the teams they played for and vice versa not the player and his sidekick(thus Jordan and the BULLS or Jordan and the JORDANAIRES). In the 80's when you said Lakers you knew Magic, Kareem, Worthy etc, or Celtics it was Bird, McHale, & Parish. The 90's brought about the whole STAR and Team, one on one image. When the Lakers battled the Pistons at the end of the 80's two years in a row it was about the teams, not so much players though they were significant it never really over shaodwed as much as in the 90's.
The 80's are probably better remembered as the decade of the Lakers and Celtic and because of the 90's Magic and Bird era. The 90's are all BULLS and ALL JORDAN. Despite Detroit, San Antonio and Houston winning atleast one championship title during that span.
When you think of the 70's if you only think of players it's because well, you don't know who won from year to year and the 60's it's like the Celtics were the NBA. Then you have Russell, Cousy, Havelichek and all those guys against Wilts and the rest of the NBA.
So, the face of the league since Jordan has been long gone now should be the best two teams who will probably battle it out again in the 2006 Finals.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:02 am
face of eras
50's-mikan???
60's-chamberlain, russell and his celtics
70's-dr j
80's-bird vs magic, boston vs la
90's-mj
00's-???????????????
50's-mikan???
60's-chamberlain, russell and his celtics
70's-dr j
80's-bird vs magic, boston vs la
90's-mj
00's-???????????????
Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:13 am
Dr. J was in the ABA during most of the 70's
Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:09 am
Thanks for the comments, glad all that typing wasn't in vain. 
Definitely agree. Everything back in the day seemed to happen more "organically", from the marketing to the popularity to the moves on the court. I think that's the difference between the ariel exploits of Dr J and MJ and some of the highlights we see these days. It seems like some of today's high flyers are going up-and-under for the sake of it, rather than it happening "in the moment"...although there's plenty of spontaneous action in today's game that is fantastic to watch, don't get me wrong.
Something else I neglected to mention is that players in years gone by seem to have more of a love of the game and of competition, a genuine enthusiasm about the sport. Take the dunk contest for example. Back in the day, players like Michael Jordan and Dominique Wilkins battled for the crown past their first couple of seasons. Jordan tired of them but did try his hand at the three point shootout (with embarrassing results), Nique also gave it up after 1990 but won his second dunk title at the age of 30, his 8th year in the league. Shawn Kemp was keen to compete his first four seasons in the league.
These days, it seems like those events are "beneath" today's top players. LeBron
"ummed" and "ahhed" before finally declining an invitation. We'll never see the likes of Vince, T-Mac or Kobe in the contest again. It can't be the risk of injuries; only one player that I know of has come off worse for wear after a dunk contest - Tony Dumas - and he was already nursing a bum knee coming into the contest, which he slightly aggravated.
It's not just the dunk contest though. I think the All-Star game itself has lost its prestige and become somewhat of a chore to a few players. Magic and Isiah thrived in All-Star competition, placing pride on the line as much as the whole thing was about entertaining the fans. The stock answers a lot of players give to the media about the game - "It's for the fans. I'm just out here having fun, trying to have a good time." - sometimes suggest they'd rather be somewhere else. And again, there's only been one noteworthy injury in the All-Star game
Perhaps it's wrong of me to judge them so harshly. After all when you break it down professional sports is still an occupation and I'm sure like the rest of us, NBA players would like to take a break every now and then. But it's interesting how the game and indeed the sport seemed to mean more to players a decade ago. Perhaps the hoopla and hype in today's league does suck the fun out of it somewhat. Or maybe it is just about the money.
It's going to be difficult to replicate the personalities of the older NBA because of how academic the sport is now.
Back in the day players made up their own moves on the playground, like the Pearl & Clyde. Their styles were distinct and couldn't really be copied. People wanted to see that one particular guy play, and nobody else could substitute. Nowadays, as successful as someone as Billups is, i doubt if i'm going to see something from Billups (from an entertainment standpoint) that i haven't seen from a dozen other guards.
Definitely agree. Everything back in the day seemed to happen more "organically", from the marketing to the popularity to the moves on the court. I think that's the difference between the ariel exploits of Dr J and MJ and some of the highlights we see these days. It seems like some of today's high flyers are going up-and-under for the sake of it, rather than it happening "in the moment"...although there's plenty of spontaneous action in today's game that is fantastic to watch, don't get me wrong.
Something else I neglected to mention is that players in years gone by seem to have more of a love of the game and of competition, a genuine enthusiasm about the sport. Take the dunk contest for example. Back in the day, players like Michael Jordan and Dominique Wilkins battled for the crown past their first couple of seasons. Jordan tired of them but did try his hand at the three point shootout (with embarrassing results), Nique also gave it up after 1990 but won his second dunk title at the age of 30, his 8th year in the league. Shawn Kemp was keen to compete his first four seasons in the league.
These days, it seems like those events are "beneath" today's top players. LeBron
"ummed" and "ahhed" before finally declining an invitation. We'll never see the likes of Vince, T-Mac or Kobe in the contest again. It can't be the risk of injuries; only one player that I know of has come off worse for wear after a dunk contest - Tony Dumas - and he was already nursing a bum knee coming into the contest, which he slightly aggravated.
It's not just the dunk contest though. I think the All-Star game itself has lost its prestige and become somewhat of a chore to a few players. Magic and Isiah thrived in All-Star competition, placing pride on the line as much as the whole thing was about entertaining the fans. The stock answers a lot of players give to the media about the game - "It's for the fans. I'm just out here having fun, trying to have a good time." - sometimes suggest they'd rather be somewhere else. And again, there's only been one noteworthy injury in the All-Star game
Perhaps it's wrong of me to judge them so harshly. After all when you break it down professional sports is still an occupation and I'm sure like the rest of us, NBA players would like to take a break every now and then. But it's interesting how the game and indeed the sport seemed to mean more to players a decade ago. Perhaps the hoopla and hype in today's league does suck the fun out of it somewhat. Or maybe it is just about the money.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:28 am
Great article, that was a good read. I agree, there hasn't been anyone that stood out since the days of Magic, Larry, Jordan, and Hakeem. I can see Shaq being the face of the last decade or so, but really, he wasn't the only guy that stood out. He had Penny and Kobe at his side, among several of other big name players. Nowadays, we have a handful of players that can potentially be the face of the NBA, especially with LeBron, but really, we can't predict how much of an impact he will really make.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:33 am
I have a question about this. We're looking for the face of the League as the best players or as the guy who is more marketable?
Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:42 am
I think he means the person that when you think NBA , the first one that comes to your mind .
Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:49 am
Both, really. The players synonymous with the NBA, the ones who can easily be recognised by casual fans (and even folks who don't really like basketball) because they are the best in the league.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:34 pm
Great article Andrew.
Personally i think that LBJ is the face of the NBA. Very talented, will be good for years and years to come. True, he hasnt won much yet, but Jordan didnt win a title until Pippen came to the Bulls. Its just too hard to win a title with only one star on a team (the exception being Olajuwon's 93-94 Rockets)
Personally i think that LBJ is the face of the NBA. Very talented, will be good for years and years to come. True, he hasnt won much yet, but Jordan didnt win a title until Pippen came to the Bulls. Its just too hard to win a title with only one star on a team (the exception being Olajuwon's 93-94 Rockets)
Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:36 pm
Yeah, definitely a nice article.
I read this last night and it got me thinking. And to be honest, I have no idea who is the face of the NBA today.
The future does belong to LeBron, Amare and Wade but at the moment, I don't have an idea.
I read this last night and it got me thinking. And to be honest, I have no idea who is the face of the NBA today.
The future does belong to LeBron, Amare and Wade but at the moment, I don't have an idea.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:41 pm
Nice 'Drew
I think that although LeBron may be the face of the NBA, there is no player in this era who will stand out like Jordan, Magic or Bird. A lot of players are very good, but the media really does take away the sort of aura around them by letting us in on too many 'secrets' about the player. Back then, we knew less about them so naturally we followed everything we could find about then, and that added to the aura.
Jordan and Co. stood out because they were truly the best in the league, no questions asked. I don't think we will truly have a face of the NBA untill there is one player who everyone knows is the best. All these threads about who's better just proves that no-one stands head and shoulders above the others anymore, and that's who the face of the NBA will be.
I think that although LeBron may be the face of the NBA, there is no player in this era who will stand out like Jordan, Magic or Bird. A lot of players are very good, but the media really does take away the sort of aura around them by letting us in on too many 'secrets' about the player. Back then, we knew less about them so naturally we followed everything we could find about then, and that added to the aura.
Jordan and Co. stood out because they were truly the best in the league, no questions asked. I don't think we will truly have a face of the NBA untill there is one player who everyone knows is the best. All these threads about who's better just proves that no-one stands head and shoulders above the others anymore, and that's who the face of the NBA will be.