Re: A bostonherald.com article from cecil.wright@justice.gc.ca

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

> From: "Cecil Wright" <cecil@hfx.eastlink.ca>
>
> My concern is over the possibility that Pierce cannot believe that any 
> other
> teammate may be in a better position to shoot.  I am glad that he wants to
> be the player who takes the pressure shot.  That is a strength and a
> testiment to his gumption.  But the fact that a play was not diagrammed 
> for
> him to get that shot should not be viewed as a slap in his face IMHO.  As
> Obie said, he thought PP would be doubleteamed and less likely to get a 
> good
> shot off.  Whether or not that is actually what happened is immaterial if 
> he
> is to be the coach.  That is my point I guess.  Obie has done pretty well 
> by
> Paul thus far and I would have felt better if Paul had just shut his mouth
> for the sake of team harmony.

Generally, this is agreeable to me as well, especially the last part about 
Pierce keeping his mouth shut (to the media/public anyway).  It's a 
situation where you have a guy who's in his first playoff games, and he's 
making his way.  As is usual, there was a point, buried deep in the 
hyperbole and ... well, crap that a lot of sportswriters use, but I 
objected to Callahan's really poorly written article.

But let's push that aside.  Better for Paul Pierce to have kept his mouth 
shut.  No doubt about it.  Better for Walker or Pierce to get the ball, 
rather than Rogers popping off Anderson?  Debatable.  But it all boils 
down to what Cecil called the "slap in the face".  It can be good (useful,
  maybe, in fueling his competitiveness) if he feels somewhat ... I don't 
know ... slighted and can use it to fire himself for the next (important) 
game.  Like it was a passing thing, emphasized by the emotion of just 
playing in, and losing, the game.  He goes out and plays with fire, but 
under control; you know, the essential basketball player's gameplan is to 
strike a Zen-like balance between aggressiveness with control, loose yet 
prepared, thinking about the game play, but not thinking *too* much, etc, 
etc.  Shooters *always* think they ought to be taking the shot, in other 
words.  No other teammates are quite good enough -- don't get me wrong 
they're a great bunch of guys -- but I'm a shooter, dammit!  You know how 
it is.  Those guys are money whe they're on, and they often need that 
self-justification.  It doesn't matter if it's true -- they don't even 
need to think it's true but for 2-3 hours.  When I hoop, I tell myself I'm 
going to do what my game is: rebound the ball, take open shots, look to 
pass to cutters *and* that I'm the best guy at there at those things.  (I 
like to play with low competition -- elementary schools kids are the best 
for this.)  It's only during the after-game beer that I allow that other 
players proved me wrong, and by then it doesn't matter, my team won (or 
lost, whatever ... hey look, a beer!).  Maybe even guys in the NBA need to 
go through a similar (if infinitely more realistic and less 
self-delusional) process.

It's bad if this is a lingering thing that causes a rift between teammates 
and/or the coaching staff.

It's about a whole team finding out exactly what it means to be in the 
playoffs; coaches, players, everybody.  I think it's most likely the 
former probability rather than the latter, but Paul Pierce ought to have 
kept his mouth shut to the media and the public, and his actions on the 
court would have been taken as pure competitive fire and not squabbling.  
But all teams go through these molehills that are, sometimes, made into 
mountains by sports media.  Successful teams brush it aside, or come to 
some consensus in the locker room if a real problem exists, and move on to 
the next challenge.

> I am not saying that the applecart is upset
> because I don't believe it to be true.  But they have just come off a 
> tough
> loss where they battled the Sickzers and the Refs in the last few seconds.
> I empathize with his frustration but just don't want the rest of the guys 
> to
> get pissed off either.

Yes, the so-called team "chemistry" -- so very important.  You're right, 
and I hope that there's enough good communication involved where guys have 
come to some sort of understanding (or have some sort method where it's 
totally forgotten -- if people just let it go entirely that can also be 
helpful) about the whole thing.  That's probably likely.  These guys all 
get along, is the line we hear from everybody.  These guys bounce back.  I'
ve got to think that's going to be the case this time, too.

> Though the shot went in to win their series, should Shaq have been upset
> that Jackson did not diagram it for him?

Hmmm.  Undoubtedly he would have been fouled convincingly, as Jim said.  
But, in a way, maybe he should be, in that he's a "superstar", the best 
player in the league when he's playing, but he can't take the last shot?  
The guy shoots a high percentage, and no one can stop him from getting 
position.  What better final shot is there?  I'm one of those that thinks 
that Shaq coasts, and has no one to really compete against, like the 
Centers In the Days of Yore.  So maybe if he used that to make himself an 
even better player, maybe.  The real philosophical question (a la the tree 
(or bear, for that matter) in the woods) is "Would P-Jax have allowed Shaq 
to sit and sulk like Pippen?".  This also really shows the myth of the 
"there *has* to be a star, a go-to guy".  (i.e. Robert Horry is not the 
Lakers' go-to guy.)  If Shaq's team wins, he's happy, and if he doesn't 
have to do more to win, he doesn't have to.  Maybe that's not the best 
thing, but, on the other hand, he "gets the job done".  I don't think 
there's a magical number of "stars" you need on your team.  You just need 
"a lot" of good players.  Whatever "a lot" is depending on competition.  
Or luck.  Lot's of luck.  Or a leprechaun.  Chamberlain/West-esque stacked 
team.  Or a weak league, and guys named Jordan and Jackson.  Or... .

Bird