TORONTO (CP) - Four Canadians have made Time magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people. Basketball star Steve Nash, Flickr website creators Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake, and EBay's first employee and president, Jeffrey Skoll, made the list alongside the likes of Pope Benedict, Oprah Winfrey, and George W. Bush.
NBA legend Charles Barkley writes in the magazine about Nash, saying he's taught the world that it pays to be selfless.
Barkley wrote that he enjoys watching Nash "act like a magician on the court."
Taught the world to be selfless? Really, Steve Nash did that? I assume you mean the degradation of the star-focussed team concept? Really? Steve Nash did all that?
I thought the "selfless" trend in basketball boiled down to:
- the success of the San Antonio Spurs structure in terms of the collective focus of all employees in the front office, and the balance of the team on the court;
- the realized limitations of the Kobe-Shaq-centred Lakers Dynasty from egos and politics;
- the further validation of Bill Simmon's Ewing Theory; and
- most importantly, the failing of post-2000 U.S. Men's Basketball at World Championships and the Olympics via their teambuilding patchwork of All-Stars and marketable names at the hands of team-disciplined countries with lesser known players.
Nash's inclusion hardly evokes a response on the level of Roe v. Wade; in fact, i would say that his inclusion is pretty much inconsequential to the entire list. He is probably one of the few players who is accessible to the Time Magazine reader demographic. Maybe that is just it. Demographics. Marketing. Spin. Perhaps, his inclusion is just Time Magazine helping a fellow Time Warner business in TNT boost publicity around their NBA coverage by referencing this floppy-haired, self-effacing point guard that no one can really hate. I mean, he really is just a nice guy, and cross-subsidiary reacharound isn't a new phenomenon in business. Adbusters could probably have a field day with how the Canadian Press is wrong to pick up this PR-based story and, thereby, legitimize it.
What is more interesting is how this story acts as another contributing voice to debate surrounding the MVP coronation of Steve Nash. This is a rather wide-open year with lots of candidates and no real favourite - even though the Arizona Republic reported Nash would win last week. Fans, announcers and writers can endlessly debate the merits of players. Basically, it is the perfect storm for the NBA to gain greater media exposure, while buying time for the playoffs to script storylines of underdogs, matchups, and classic games - components which drive fan interest long after their team is eliminated.
(And if there are doubts as to David Stern's capability of hijacking mainstream media sources with this sort of non-game distraction, his worth was cemented by the NBA Dress Code announcement last October that received equal coverage as the World Series and NFL games.)
I hate to wade into the debate of this award that promotes the league through greater emphasis on the selection process and announcement anticipation than on the recognition of the player. Further, I hate to get into the fact that since the NBA provides no criteria for the award, voters can create their own heuristics and base them entirely on asymmetrical information. Sure team-based components like win-loss record and playoff appearances, and individual-based components like point, assist and rebound averages provide an illusion of objectivity to the selection process; however, completely subjective akin to arguments between columnists often hold greater weight. But no, I don't want to get into that.
So as much as he is a "cultural force" in the "heroes and pioneers" section of influence, Steve Nash isn't my MVP. Dwyane Wade is out because couldn't sort out the Miami Heat - partly because Pat Riley meddled too much too soon. Dirk Nowitzki and Chauncey Billups are both out because of their supporting casts, which like Nash last year, makes their jobs pretty easy.
My MVP Award boils down to two guys:
For his 81 points in one game, 35.4 points per game, and for carrying a borderline-terrible Lakers team to the playoffs, not to mention then putting his nuts in the face of last year's MVP, I gotta go with Kobe. (yeah, i know it was a charge. but still!) His influence is all over this season. Time Magazine should be writing about that.
Hell, given his 8 ppg improvement and his re-emergence as a marketable human being, I woud give him the Most Improved Player as well. Boris Diaw, be damned.
No comments:
Post a Comment