Disputing Widely Held Perceptions in the NBA

The "Basketball for Thought" is a commentary by Kris Gardner.

January 1997

I grow increasingly tired each and every day listening to some constant beliefs which are permeating throughout the NBA. Consequently, I have decided to give my views regarding certain league-wide perceptions.

First, a dominant center is not a pre-requisite to win an NBA championship. The reason the Utah Jazz has not won a NBA title is because they have not had consistent performances from other players besides future Hall of Famers Karl Malone and John Stockton not because they lack a dominant center.

Let's look at the most dominant center in league history: Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt "the Stilt"; revolutionized the NBA. The free throw lane was widened because of him. He averaged 50 points for an entire season. However, when you examine his number of championships (2), they pale, greatly, in comparison to his arch rival and contemporary, Bill Russell's championships (11). Bill Russell stands 6'9". Russell was the ultimate team player.

New York Knicks' center Patrick Ewing has no rings.

Shaquille O'Neal, as of yet, has no rings.

Hakeem Olajuwon has 2 rings; but, as great as he has been throughout his career; Hakeem didn't win titles until he had teammates who could knock down 3 pointers or step up in the big game. One final note: Wes Unseld, 6'7"; Dave Cowens, 6'8.5"; Wills Reed, 6'9" all won NBA championships.

Second, why do some basketball people constantly spout out: "There are only 4 or 5 teams with a legitimate shot at winning the title this year" as if that is some type of miraculous revelation. Where were these same people in the 1980s? Every year the NBA Finals consisted of either the LA Lakers or the Boston Celtics or both. Year in and year out, most people knew the championship was going to be won by either the Lakers or the Cs. The Lakers dominated the Pacific Division and the Cs owned the Atlantic. Now, that sure wasn't a lot of variety. Today, be glad we have 4 or 5 teams with a legit title shot.

Third, I am thoroughly disgusted each time I see or hear someone say the Houston Rockets would not have repeated as champions or, even won 1 title, if Michael Jordan did not get bored with the game and gone on to pursue his "dream to play professional baseball". When did the majority of basketball followers become Nostradamuses and gain the ability to predict the future? If Mike would have stayed in the league, he could have suffered a torn ACL and been out for a year we'll never know. We do know, however, that NBA Commissioner David Stern presented the Houston Rockets with 2 trophies. Case closed. Enough said. We need to deal with what is not what might have been.

Next, why do people tab new players as the "next so and so"? Grant Hill was supposed to be the next Michael Jordan. Robert Horry, who still can't dribble, was the next Scottie Pippen. Steve Nash -- the next John Stockton. On and on it goes. Soon the next "Grant Hill" will be playing in the league. Give me a break. Let players be themselves. There will never be another Jordan, Stockton, Pippen, or Hill nor will there be another Bird, Magic, Isiah, or Dr. J. Instead of trying to make a player fit into a media made label, let him play and make his own name -- good or bad.

Finally, the regular season does have importance.  Let me think, how many teams have won titles as the 8th seed in the playoffs?  I know the answer: zero.