Perspective from Hoopsworld's Sonics writer

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hoopsworld isn't much of a "news" site, but it's very good for getting
perspectives from avid fans like Josh and, in this case, Kevin Pelton. Kevin
brings a great perspective to this trade. I found his breakdown of those
East vs. West numbers especially enlightening. Keep those in mind when
Wallace rattles off Vin's numbers against the Eastern Conference.

Mark


The Day the Cancer Died 
And so the day is finally here. Vin Baker is a member of the Seattle
SuperSonics no longer, having officially been dealt this afternoon to the
Boston Celtics in the exact deal first rumored last Thursday by the Boston
Globe's Peter May: Baker and Shammond Williams to the Celtics in exchange
for Kenny Anderson, Joseph Forte, and Vitaly Potapenko. 
Baker's stay in Seattle lasted, by my math, 1,762 days since he came to the
Sonics on September 25, 1997 in a three-way trade that saw the Sonics send
forward Shawn Kemp to Cleveland. That stay was about 1,532 days too long
when one stops to consider that following the end of the 1997-98 season,
Baker never gave the Sonics the All-Star play they were expecting -- and
paying dearly for -- on a regular basis. 
When the story of Sonics history is written someday (In all seriousness,
it's my unrealistic goal to write a book chronicling Sonics history before I
die), for all the other villains of the late-1990's -- Jim McIlvaine, Billy
Owens, Olden Polynice, Vernon Maxwell, not to mention in many fans' eyes
former general manager and current CEO/co-owner Wally Walker -- it will in
all likelihood be Baker who receives the blame for the Sonics' descent into
mediocrity after their run of success under George Karl in the mid-1990's.
If Baker had continued putting up numbers like his team-bests of 19.2 points
and 8.0 rebounds per game he averaged during his first season in Seattle,
the Sonics might well have overcame those other mistakes and continued to
contend to this date. 
As you well know by now, Baker experienced a sudden, unexpected, and
precipitous drop-off in play beginning with the lockout season of 1999. It's
difficult to think of another player experiencing the same fall in
production with neither age (Baker turned 30 last November) nor serious
injury (a variety of minor ailments have plagued Baker, but nothing that
would explain his difference in play) as an explanation. 
At first, the easy explanation was that Baker entered the 1999 season out of
shape, having let himself go because he believed that the lockout would
claim the entire season. But Baker was clearly in better shape over the next
three seasons, and an intense off-season conditioning program last summer
dramatically contradicted rumors that Baker had ballooned when he showed to
last fall's training camp looking as trim as he had at any point in his NBA
career, renewing optimism amongst Sonics fans. 
Then there is the question of confidence. At no point was Baker's
self-esteem more shaken than during the 1999 season, when he opened the year
by missing his first 18 free throws (!) On a more applicable level, he seems
to have a difficult time enduring criticism. While he heard a few scattered
boos last season at KeyArena and was booed fairly regularly toward the end
of the 2000-01 season, Seattle fans are generally polite to their teams in
this regard. This makes me wonder if Boston really is such a good
destination for Baker; Celtics fans are already questioning the move and
Baker will be sure to hear plenty of boos if he struggles, or even if he
plays decently but the team is unsuccessful. What the effect of that will be
on Baker's psyche is difficult to discern. 
Another factor I feel contributed to Baker's struggles -- but was certainly
not the source of them -- was Paul Westphal's attempts to motivate Baker. My
analysis from afar has always been that Baker needs a coach who can hold his
hand and be his friend. But Westphal tried challenging him, with Baker
seemingly quite dismayed by the Sonics' then-coach's appeals to religion.
Nate McMillan's strategy with Baker always seemed more like how I would have
handled him, and though McMillan oversaw arguably Baker's worst season pro
in 2000-01, he deserves some amount of credit for Baker's resurgence last
season. 
This is a little more out there, but I've always felt the Bucks took years
of Baker's career by playing him so heavily when he was in Milwaukee. During
three of Baker's four seasons with the Bucks, he played at least 40 minutes
per game, ranking amongst the league's leaders in minutes played all three
seasons. But even though Baker was likely not well-suited for that kind of
heavy use, it shouldn't have affected him at age 27 -- as he was during 1999
-- now should it have? 
In the end, we'll likely never really know why Baker's play declined, and
odds are that there are multiple lesser causes, not one simple and easy
answer. Nevertheless, the fact remains that I would be shocked if Baker were
ever to be an All-Star again (yes, even in the East). That does not
necessarily make him the worthless player that he was treated by Sonics fans
as, even with Baker's exorbitant salary. 
The question is whether Baker can, like one of the players he was dealt to
Boston for, Anderson, accept that he is no longer an offensive star ore one
of his team's top options. Despite the presence of some of the league's top
scorers on the perimeter, including Rashard Lewis and Brent Barry, Baker
continued to use the second-most possessions on the Sonics (.526
possessions/minute, with a possession defined as a field goal attempt, just
over two free throws, or a turnover) behind perennial All-Star Gary Payton.
The ultra-efficient Barry, meanwhile, languished in 12th, using only .349
possessions per minute played. It's little wonder then that Barry was one of
the players who benefited most from Baker's absence, and it's also no
surprise that transferring possessions from Baker to Barry made the Sonics a
better offensive team. 
Baker is not entirely to blame for his quick trigger; after all, I'm not
entirely sure anyone ever told him not to shoot, which is one reason I've
felt all along that Baker has had to go. The Sonics have an important vested
interest in Baker based on the money they've spent on him (sunk cost theory
has been slow to travel to the NBA). Baker's salary alone will keep him
playing throughout his contract no matter how bad he gets, I'm quite
certain, but the pressure would seem to be even worse here in Seattle, where
the team wanted to justify their move to sign Baker. Now that's not a very
good reason to play someone or give them touches in the low post, but I
think it's impossible to remove a subconscious urge that Baker has to be
played. Several fans I've discussed with this think that it doesn't make
sense because McMillan wouldn't play Baker if he felt he was unworthy of the
time, and they cite McMillan benching Baker during the 2000-01 season. But
the fact remains that though he didn't start, Baker still played nearly 30
minutes a night that year despite being horribly ineffective at the one
thing he supposedly does well, scoring (he shot just 42%). 
The fact that Baker demands the ball and shoots it too much might be
forgivable in the right situation, but neither the Celtics nor the Sonics
are that situation. The Sonics were one of the league's top offensive teams
last season, leading the league in field goal percentage, so they clearly
had plenty of alternatives. And while the Celtics were low-percentage
shooters, they made enough threes that their effective percentage was not
bad at all. Besides, do the Celtics really want Baker taking looks away from
Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker? 
Baker would also be more tolerable if he were to focus harder on defense and
rebounding. He is a horribly inconsistent defender at this stage of his
career; when inspired, as at times during the playoff series with San
Antonio, he can do a very good job in the post. At other times, he looks
uninterested. And even in the best of times, Baker is little threat to block
shots, something that is generally part of the job description at center. As
for rebounding, he's about average -- not as bad as he sometimes takes heat
for being, but also a rather significant decline from not only Tony Battie,
who he will likely replace in Boston's starting lineup, but also Potapenko,
who he was dealt for. 
One of the points used by those fans who think Baker will be a strong
offensive threat in the Eastern Conference is the breakdown of his scoring
against Eastern Conference foes and Western Conference foes. While it is
true that Baker's scoring average was much better against the East (I don't
have the numbers handy, but it was something like 17 points to 13 points),
this is a case where while the numbers don't lie per se, but they do omit an
important detail. After returning from his dislocated toes, Baker came off
the bench, playing and scoring less. And only one of those post-injury games
(New York on April 5) was against an Eastern team. So while Baker did play
better against the weak sister of NBA conferences, the difference was not as
dramatic as has been portrayed. As well, that performance did not translate
into success. An oft-debated statistic in Sonic circles has been the Sonics'
dramatically improved record when Baker did not play last season. That was
magnified against the East; the Sonics were a mediocre 10-9 (53%) with Baker
versus Eastern foes, an excellent 9-2 (82%) without him. 
In conclusion . . . goodbye Vin, and good riddance.