Play The Right Way

• What is it with the counting of titles as a measurement of a player's greatness? Shouldn't it be on how important the player is to his team when it is winning? If the number of titles was the defining factor, wouldn't Robert Horry be the greatest power forward of all time?
-- Sam M., Helsinki, Finland

I tend to agree with your second question, Sam. You're right, Robert Horry should not be up there among the greatest ever. But when it comes to separating the players at the top of the list, their ability to make the biggest difference and complete the ultimate championship goal has to be an enormous tiebreaker. The players themselves view it that way. (by Ian Thomsen, CNNSI.com basketball correspondent)

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ian_thomsen/06/17/countdown.lakers.celtics/1.html#ixzz0rFvLFJYo

My viewpoint: I disagree with with Mr. Ian Thomsen. After watching a dazzling 7-game series between bitter rivals the Lakers and the Celtics, reporters jumped to all sorts of articles and reviews of the series and then to their own conclusions about the next season, even though the Lakers just lifted the golden flask. I always love how reporters ask about next season when they just got the darn piece of metal in their hands. Let the players enjoy the moment!

People always define success as achievements. Whether it be a promotion at work, a championship, an award, a certificate, or a high GPA. We all want it, and keep in mind there is nothing wrong with success as a motivator, unless that becomes your idol. Success, from a secular point of view, is what drives people to excel at their art or job so they can put out the best possible product. Its good incentive to work hard so people can watch the benefits and improve on them.

Yet, does success define a good player or worker, especially in sports? I like Sam M.'s question, especially about Robert Horry. I believe the underlying implication of his question is this: does success really make a person a quality player, worker, or individual? Or does playing well and helping others win more important?

We know the greats of basketball like Jordan, Bird, and Dr. J. Winning championships are part of their resumes. We recognize greatness because they reached the pinnacle of it. Kobe Bryant got his fifth last week. We know these guys play phenomenal basketball, established in the annals of peach-basket history.

However, looking at that alone, does that mean everyone else who didn't win a championship "unsuccessful?" Does getting a piece of medal mean "you did it the right way?" Or, to better put it, do players like Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, or Reggie Miller, who never won a championship, are they "failures?"

The answer is a resounding no. Ian Thomsen says, "even players themselves view it that way," referring to that players see that between completing a championship and just doing well enough separates the "gods" and the "boys."

Let's face it, winning any championship at any level is a difficult task. Teamwork, practice, individual workouts, recovery etc...the investment takes years before someone gets there. Someone ends up on top, they achieve success for doing all the right things that earn them a championship. So competition weeds out the best from the better, better from the average. Only one gets there, the chances are few.

Yet what makes a successful player? Who do you admire more? We admire Kobe because he works hard. We admire Derek Fisher because he is a leader. They won championships.

So what about basketball players like Steve Nash? Dirk Nowitzki? (No championships) Or soccer players Luis Figo? Eusebio? Edwin Van Der Sar? (Footballers who never won the World Cup) Are they unsuccessful? I believe Ian Thomsen's answer is flawed because it bases on the assumption that its how others view their career, but not based on a more important standard of success: 1. did they play the right way, 2. did they play fair and respectfully, and 3. did they do it consistently.

In my opinion, Robert Horry, a former player who was won multiple championships with multiple teams, is one of the worst power forwards in the history of the NBA. But he has multiple rings, so he deserves credit for being a team player. But comparing his play in the regular season vs. play-offs, I saw one major problem: no consistency. In the regular season, he simply is listless, idle and gets a few shots. Finally, when the playoffs came, he "suddenly rises" up to play and hits downtown shots that lift this team, hence his nickname, "Big Shot Rob." See, he only came alive because that's where "games supposedly count." I think Robert Horry was a poor player because he just came alive only when he wanted to. He just makes big shots because he can.

For playing the right way (#1): you have John Stockton. John Stockton was the former Utah Jazz point guard wizard who could pass the ball really well. Most nights and regular season games he played well and helped his team win alot. He connected the passes with his teammates, including the most famous quarterback-wide receiver connection, "Stockton to Malone." He played his heart out and "sadly," never won a championship. Yet some things you forget is: he won a gold medal for the U.S. Olympic team and he won the Western Conference championship (the prelude to the NBA Championship). People overlook such achievements. But he is a hall of famer because he played the right way and people will always remember for passing the like no other.

Now about the consistency part (#3). If I were to teach my son basketball, or a rec-team how to play ball, who would I use as an example to teach how to play power forward? Charles Barkley or Robert Horry? Of course I would use the big southern forward from Alabama (Barkley) to demonstrate how to play. Robert Horry chucked shots, while Barkley wrecked defenses, scored, and helped his team. For playing defense, I would use someone like Ron Artest as an example how to hound defenders, stop the other team's leading scorer, and teach how to move on defense like Artest. Even though Artest won a championship recently, I still thought he was successful before because he knows how to play defense.

Back to #2, talking about playing fair. Who is more successful in terms of playing fair? Steve Nash? Reggie Miller? Derek Fisher? I look up to all these guys, two of them who never won a championship (Miller and Nash) because they play hard and don't behave like wild men on or off the court. They were classy guys, played fair, and receive the respect of the fans, the press, and their colleagues and opposition.

I remember in an article when a reporter asked Steve Nash about this recent elimination to the Lakers this past summer in the Western Conference finals. Nash responded to an inquiry about getting to the NBA finals and if he felt remorse about not making it yet. Nash responded along the lines of "how successful they were this year" because of the fact that they got this far despite the press' low expectations of their season. He also mentioned for himself, personally, that getting this far goes beyond his expectations. He mentions he came from a modest school (University of Santa Clara), while coming this far with his Phoenix Suns and the trials they have been through as a team; he is satisfied with his career. His team also swept his hated nemesis this season in the 2nd round of the playoffs, the San Antonio Spurs.

To wrap this up, I think what is important is to be look at the whole spectrum of the definition of success. Being successful is not just looking at the person who hoists up a trophy in the end. Trophies glitter and shine, but I believe players shine with or without them. Basing someone's career on material achievements demeans someone's effort and character if they fall short. I'm not saying competition is unfair and that some players deserve championships than others, because that's why we have sports, there's got to be a winner.

Yet it is more fruitful to look at a player's career in any sport based on how they play, they played it well, and they played it consistently. A championship is basically the fruit on top of their career...not the meat of it. Finally, the irony is that players don't win championships and are successful on their own...the teams do. People used to criticize Kobe Bryant because without "Shaquille O' Neal, he would never have won any championships on his own." Yet I could use that same argument for Shaq: without Kobe, he wouldn't have a wingman to put the ball in the net.