PDA

View Full Version : Media and their behavior of "legacy forcing"



joedaheights
05-30-2015, 01:42 AM
Lebron is in the Finals. And, if you're a media member who just doesn't have the talent to create new angles or subtopics of interest, you have an easy story to write.

"How good is Lebron? Insert hyperbole about how good he is compared to player X.. come up with some angle that is plausible.. get people talking"

We saw it with Kobe, with Harold Miner, Tracy McGrady, Grant Hill and even Jordan when he was being compared to Julius Erving as a young player.

Look, sports writers are journalism majors. You're not getting the thought provoking opinions and originality of a Howard Cosell. You're getting hype and fluff. It's a very odd thing that we go to the building that houses some of the worst high school students at college and say, "hey, when it comes to sports, form our opinions for us."

That's how you get groundbreaking "ideas" like, "well, Jay Cutler is a father now, so the maturity that comes with parenthood will influence his decision making on the field." Sounds exaggerated? Nope. About 10 months ago that was the conventional "wisdom" created by the Chicago media.

And corporations love when a current stars legacy is being forced on everyone to say he's "better than this guy"... Even though it's false only in the sense of Jordan, by and large, what do you make more money off of if you sell shoes or jerseys or advertising time? Do you make more money if the average viewer thinks that Larry Bird is better than player X playing today? Or do you make more if you create the false conclusion that there is no better time and place to be than right now?

These legacy building moments should create themselves. You know when you don't need to be pushy about a guy? When a guy named Magic Johnson as a 20 year old rookie gets 42 points, 15 rebounds playing center against the Sixers to win the Finals, nobody needs to come in and say (gasp at the predictable media honk looking as though he's being clever by being "unpredictable") "you know, I think Magic might be better than Bob Cousy." You don't need the hype because the performance the night before IS the hype.

If the Warriors are on fire and truly playing their best and Lebron single handedly outduels them in game 6 to win the title by scoring 39 points and getting 14 assists, nobody is going to need to be "edgy, look at me having the balls to compare him to MJ cause that's just how ballsy of a reporter I am" guy.

Let's step back and actually do the comparison and where it stands now.. Lebron v. everyone, not just MJ or any one player. If he retired today, here is the list:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
2a. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2b. Bill Russell
5. Larry Bird
6. Lebron James

Now, stop... that's the list based on what players did, their resume... if you just want to talk about talent, well... players don't always play to their talent... but if you're just talking about the most talented specimen, I think you could have a total toss up between Lebron, Wilt, MJ, Shaq and Kareem..

But, if you're splitting hairs and talking about what they did... well, Lebron is in a fancy night club with one guy.. Wilt Chamberlain.

These are the alleged supermen. They can jump over a building, have rockets firing out of their rear end, and have almost a Bo Jackson like quality to their Paul Bunyon legend.. and then you laugh... you laugh because just as someone is bragging to you that Wilt Chamberlain is the best beach volleyball player ever and led the league in assists just cause he felt like it, you come back with...

And YET.. you can't explain why his team is losing to teams he has no business losing to..

1969 Finals - Wilt, traded to a team with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, plays a Boston team that was not predicted by BOSTON writers to get out of the FIRST round. They lose in 7. Wilt, years later says that the series is a "mystery to him." A mystery to his dumb ***, but not to me.

1970 Finals - Wilt, who apparently can fly to Mars and back in like a nanosecond and eats buildings for fun, watches as Willis Reed busts his leg up and has to leave game 5. While being guarded by the 6'8" Dave Debuschere, the Knicks actually come back from a big deficit to win game 5.. and then win the series in game 7 with Reed on the bench.

I guess Michael and Larry and Magic could never score 100 points or average 50 points and that's f-ing great, they also never in their worst nightmares lose that series. Period. It goes back to what I like to say, that it's great that people like to like things, but their like alone just isn't enough.

2011 Finals - The ultimate indictment. You have Wade and lose to Dirk and a bunch of dudes while averaging 18 PPG. "He's like Michael AND Magic rolled into one." Michael or Magic and Dwyane Wade light Dirk up like a christmas tree. 10 times out of 10.

2014 Finals - Lebron was the one hall of famer still in his prime on Miami. Wade was done. Guess what? That's one more hall of famer in their prime than the Spurs had.

But specifically, let's talk the 2011 Finals. You'll never find me a series where Magic, Michael, Larry, Kareem or Russell failed and yet you could point to something as bad as Lebron averaging mediocre Scottie Pippen scoring numbers and say "not only did Larry lose, but he also played like that... he didn't lose because teammates didn't perform.. he WAS a big part of the reason they lost."

I'll never say Lebron hasn't already left everyone else in the dust. I'll also never say that you would pick anyone on draft night before you'd pick him.. before we know anything about these guys.

But, if you're splitting hairs, that's the issue. The issue is not knowing when it's time to stop setting people up and just taking over.

ewing
05-30-2015, 01:50 AM
tldr

Goose17
05-30-2015, 07:37 AM
Read it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Scoots
05-30-2015, 01:31 PM
Yes, and that's why the NBA is a global marketing machine.

Mr_Jones
05-30-2015, 01:53 PM
tittays

Shammyguy3
05-30-2015, 02:25 PM
Read it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

he makes identical posts in the Bulls' forum; he writes paragraph upon paragraph of ramble that has no coherent thought, no thesis, no conclusion, no logical path. Users respond with questions about what the heck he is talking about, and he either (a) continues on his rumbling or (b) deflects the question until the thread is ruined. Glad he threw this in the main forum though instead of derailing another Bulls' forum thread

Dade County
05-30-2015, 02:55 PM
he makes identical posts in the Bulls' forum; he writes paragraph upon paragraph of ramble that has no coherent thought, no thesis, no conclusion, no logical path. Users respond with questions about what the heck he is talking about, and he either (a) continues on his rumbling or (b) deflects the question until the thread is ruined. Glad he threw this in the main forum though instead of derailing another Bulls' forum thread



:laugh2:

...

JasonJohnHorn
05-30-2015, 03:22 PM
Anybody who suggests LBJ is the reason any of his teams lost, doesn't realize that he is the reason they got as far as they did in the first place.

EVERYBODY makes mistakes. You can't point at a guy who shot above the league average and say: "He's the reason they lost", when other players on his team were playing far worse.

It's like watching a player like Shaq rip apart a team with 40 points and 20 rebounds, and then blaming the lose on him because he missed 5 free throws. That is not why they lost. They lost because the other guys on the floor shot .444 instead of the .600 Shaq shot and put the team in a position where they NEEDED a sub-par free-throw shooter to make shots.

kubernetes
05-30-2015, 03:44 PM
People want narratives and context.

Superstar goes 40/10/10. Everyone here goes 'WOW,' but what does it mean to a casual sports fan tuning into a game? People put it into context by comparing performances to past performances.

Also, it's just plain natural to compare the stars of today with the stars of the past. We don't need the media to do that-- just look at the topics here. People are always comparing today's players with yesterday's greats. Blame your granddad who would always say "I saw so-and-so play back in '62 and he would have destroyed these soft celebrities!"

RLundi
05-30-2015, 04:22 PM
I thought it was a good one. To be honest, I'm not sure what point is being made in relation to the title but I found this very well-written.

joedaheights
05-31-2015, 02:33 AM
he makes identical posts in the Bulls' forum; he writes paragraph upon paragraph of ramble that has no coherent thought, no thesis, no conclusion, no logical path. Users respond with questions about what the heck he is talking about, and he either (a) continues on his rumbling or (b) deflects the question until the thread is ruined. Glad he threw this in the main forum though instead of derailing another Bulls' forum thread

Your tone Is that of pro organization bulls fans since about Paxsons hiring... You have a patent on basketball opinion and anyone who disagrees must just be a bad guy.

I said the bulls need someone who could get them a shot every time down and referenced mj as AN EXAMPLE. the reply by you? "Oh... So you are saying we need the best player ever". When I in turn reply that no... The lakers in the latter part of the last decade won a finals with Kobe shooting 40.5% while they continuously got point blank easy offense through Gasol and Bynum, I somehow don't get a reply from you, and you jump back to "oh you're just an incoherent rambler"

Face it shammy, the bulls ate the 97 heat... A bunch of players who are good in a vacuum tossed together with the thought that "oh, well, someone who can get us offense whenever we need it? We will worry about that after the fact".

joedaheights
05-31-2015, 02:51 AM
Read it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Probably more of a you problem. Ever play chess? I'll be showing a game from the expert level.. My level, and some class C player who only sees fundamentals will bark in "I don't understand where you're going with these moves... They don't have a point.." Because the moves don't match some paint by numbers version of what they think chess is. Oh the joy of analyzing the game 16 moves later and after each move asking "Ng3 double check! Now do you get it??"

It was in 1896 right before their world champion match when siegbert tarrasch claimed that he didn't understand the moves of Emanuel lasker... He called them funny. This was just before he was crushed.

So yes, like lasker, I am used to dealing with mouth breathers. I do it all the time. The easy one to deal with is the jag off who knows he's an idiot. The hard one to deal with is a guy like shammy who thinks he's at about 166 on the iq scale

Chronz
05-31-2015, 03:09 AM
bird has gotten his country *** locked down way worse

Ty Fast
05-31-2015, 09:47 PM
Thats a lot to read

Munkeysuit
05-31-2015, 10:06 PM
Legacy forcing? haha we are just so lucky to have to sit back and read, watch or take in whatever the media decides to spew, it's really up to "us" to decide who goes on the pedestal so to speak. I think maybe some of us don't fully realize how much is at stake trying to "find the next Michael Jordan" if you were to take into consideration how much money MJ has made media types along the course of his career? THEN you would understand why the media is so quick to knock him off the pedestal and replace him with someone else.

joedaheights
06-01-2015, 01:19 PM
Legacy forcing? haha we are just so lucky to have to sit back and read, watch or take in whatever the media decides to spew, it's really up to "us" to decide who goes on the pedestal so to speak. I think maybe some of us don't fully realize how much is at stake trying to "find the next Michael Jordan" if you were to take into consideration how much money MJ has made media types along the course of his career? THEN you would understand why the media is so quick to knock him off the pedestal and replace him with someone else.

Oh I totally agree. And I put that in there. Even though Michael still generates hundreds of millions as the exception to the rule... usually retired athletes, even great ones, generate very little compared to MJ,.. even though MJ is the exception, no doubt about it, if they could get Lebron to be viewed that way, there's no way MJ could currently generate those kind of dollars.

And that's the point. That's the world that exists on Wall Street. Spin, "winning the press conference", when GMs try to sell a bad player to their fan base and sports radio hosts talk about how "hey, Phil Emery may know that Jay Cutler won't win a Super Bowl, but with Jay's talent, Phil can SELL IT for 2-3 years before fans stop buying luxury boxes and jerseys."

I understand why they're doing it, but you kinda made my point for me. They're doing it for reasons external to the decision you would come to if you really had watched MJ's entire career, or Kareem's entire career or Magic's entire career and you were sitting here watching Lebron doing a real academic style comparison.

I will say this. It was much worse watching them do it with Kobe. They were just way more desperate and forceful with Bryant, who frankly, is a full floor down from Lebron in terms of greatness. Kobe's fans and media people were like flashers. In 2002, you could actually turn on ESPN and hear people posing as serious NBA people say things like, "hey, Kobe at 22, 3 rings, Jordan at 22 0 rings." Which implies that Reggie Miller couldn't have won 3 rings with Shaq at his absolute prime lol. But then, in the 2004 Finals, when LA is imploding, Shaq is shooting over 60%, and yet Kobe is taking twice the shots shooting 37% en route to a loss, Kobe's media people and fans were nowhere to be found. But let him score 82 on Toronto and here they are with legacy forcing again.

It's much easier to bare with Lebron because he's far superior to Kobe and the media realized how many people who backed Kobe took a hit to their credibility when Kobe's body of work was over.

I don't think Lebron can match MJ and probably not exceed Magic, Kareem and Russell, or my 2, 2a and 2b group. But he can easily become 2c. The reason is the loss to Dallas in 2011. But whatever he does, if you're a smart NBA fan, should stand on it's own. It doesn't need hype if you can actually look at the body of work.

Seeing past the hype is easy if you just remove yourself from the debate. That's why I'll fervently back Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Walter Payton as a Chicagoan, but you'll never see me defending Joakim Noah, Mark Grace, any of Paxson's Bulls teams, etc. I love Walter Payton, but I'm not going to concoct reasons why he's better than Jim Brown, because he wasn't. And he wouldn't be if you dropped Brown off in 1982 either.

Seeing past the hype?

Oscar Robertson - Never led a team to a ring. His triple double average? He was a 6'5" 220 PG at a time when most SHOOTING guards were 6'2" 180 like Jerry West and if you had a player like Scottie Pippen's size, he'd be your FOUR, not your three. Michael Jordan could have played the four in Wilt or Oscar's day. Great? Sure. But to start to call him greater than even Isiah Thomas or Hakeem Olajuwon is a crime, let alone anyone like Jordan or Russell or Magic.

Wilt Chamberlain - 1969 and 1970 period. Much like this lie.. "well, Karl Malone only failed to win a ring because of MJ".. uh, yeah, about that.. go back and look. Karl Malone lost to a whole host of teams that were way WAY worse than MJ's Bulls.

The Wilt lie, other than the lie about his stats having any relation to the modern game, was that "it was just Russell and all of his hall of famers that stopped Wilt, or he'd have 11 rings or even 5 rings."

Wilt's Lakers were massive, massive favorites in 69 and 70. He lost. For that reason, not only is he not in the top 5, I don't think you can put him ahead of Shaq or Duncan even. For one because Shaq would have decapitated the Celtics.

Shaquille O'neal - I love Shaq, but you can't call him top 5. Why? His prime was just too short. If he wins in 03 and 04 and wins in 95 against Hakeem, honestly now you're struggling not to put him on MJ's level. It sucks, because for a 3 season period, I would take him over anyone, Jordan included... and not because of any kind of skill other than passing that was very good for his size... but because for those 3 years, it took 3 guys holding on for dear life to stop him from scoring.

If someone comes along and is better than MJ, I won't need Steven A to tell me.. I'll know. Same with Jim Brown or Willie Mays or Wayne Gretzky. You know...

joedaheights
06-01-2015, 01:26 PM
bird has gotten his country *** locked down way worse

Please share? Show me a performance by Bird like the 2011 Finals.