Post by jailblazer2352 on Apr 20, 2008 15:21:39 GMT -5
Every sport has it's championship necessities. These are the elements that every team needs in order to elevate themselves to the level of a champion. The cool as ice quarterback, the stonewall goaltender, and the top heavy rotation, packed with a dominant fireballer with the moxie to stare down any home run threat. Basketball has the closer; a superstar who takes over a game at the point when his team needs him most. He always wants the ball in his hands during the game's most pressure-packed moments. Closer's are the proverbial "tough that get going" once the "going gets tough." They elevate their game to another level. It's that higher gear that separates the Jordans from the Nowitzkis. Having such a player on your team creates the difference between good and great. Not only does the closer elevate his own level of play, he has the unique ability to lift an entire team. In the NBA, unlike college, a team is defined by their star.
The role of an NBA closer is perhaps the toughest in sports. Quarterbacks, goalies, and pitchers operate under hit and miss scenarios. If a pitcher blows a game, they know it's their fault, and know one is left to wonder what might have been. Goalies have a simple task: stop the puck. They either make the save or they don't. When quarterbacks fail to lead a potent attack, especially with the game on the line, they have to accept the blame for it. Basketball players often have to defy conventional wisdom with the game on the line. Before his epic Game 5 performane in last year's Eastern Finals against Detroit, Lebron James heard constant critics about his tendency to dish the ball to wide open teamates with the game on the line. The criticism reached a climax following Donyell Marshall's wide open brick at the conclusion of Game 1 of that series. On the surface, James' decision making appears reasonable. He should pass to a wide open teamate when the defenders converge on him. Shouldn't he? As the star, the closer, and the savior of the franchise, Lebron has learned that the fate of the Cleveland Cavaliers must rest on his titanic shoulders. Even when Marshall bricks a three, James, as the closer, gets blamed for it. On the other hand, over the course of NBA history there have been various occasions when a "Donyell Marshall" makes the shot and makes the star look like an unselfish genius. Case in point: the Chicago Bulls dynasty. On two occasions throughout their 90's dominance, Michael Jordan elected to dish the Finals clinching shot to a wide open teamate. In 1993 and 1997, John Paxson and Steve Kerr converted, saving Jordan from a title wave of monday morning quarterbacking. If Paxson and Kerr miss, history might be singing a vastly different tune regarding the reputation of Michael Jordan in crunchtime. If Jordan shoots and misses, the opponent stays alive and he faces questions on why he didn't give it up. This is what makes the role of a closer so difficult. It's the Michael Jordans and the Lebron James' who either bear the brunt of criticism or accept a mountain of praise, even if Donyell Marshall, John Paxson, or Steve Kerr took the final shot.
The other aspect of being a closer lies in the build-up to a game's conclusion. Players are defined by the 4th quarter. A great closer takes over the game and wills his team to victory. An opponent who lacks such a player will always fall to a team that utilizes one. While game-winning shots are compelling, it's the build-up that creats such an opportunity. Witnessing a closer take over a game can be the most exciting event in sports. It's performances like Lebron James scoring his team's final 25 points in Game 5 of last year's Eastern Conference Finals or Dwyane Wade overcoming the flu to lead his Miami Heat to a momentum changing, comeback victory while trailing Dallas by 13 with six minutes to play in the game, and down 2 games to none in the series that fill a programming schedule on ESPN classic. It's even more epic when two legends butt heads, refusing to allow their teams to succumb. Bird and Magic went head to head on many such occasions, as did Russell and Wilt. The best rivalries are even created by closers. This is because a closer, and the legendary plays and performances he creates, determine the success of a team and their place in history.
The Dallas Mavericks and Phoenix Suns have been perennial championship contenders in recent seasons, yet neither has won a championship. Dallas blew a 2-0 lead in the '06 Finals and flamed out in round one in '07 after winning 67 games in the regular season. Phoenix always makes a deep run into the playoffs where they can never seem to take that next step. Both teams have a common character flaw that lies within their respective superstars, Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash. Nowitzki is seemingly incapable of elevating his game and developing a killer instinct. Closers don't settle for risky jump shots at the most critical stage of the game. Nowiztki's inability to propel his team to the level of champion was evidenced on the highest of stages when he was dominated by Dwyane Wade in the Finals and Baron Davis in last year's first round. Nash, on the other hand, has a tougher mental make-up than Nowitzki just less of an ability to score at will. Nash needs to be the complement to a dominant closer because his game revolves around how he stes up his teamates. This is not a problem as long as Phoenix has someone else who can step up and finish what Nash creates. So far, no such player has emerged and the Suns remain ringless.
The importance of a closer is blatant. Basketball is more of an individual showcase than any other sport. While you still need a team to win championships, that team will never be complete without a closer. Look at the great NBA dynasties. Each one had not only one such player, but in many cases two or three. The Red Aeurbach Celtics had guys like Bob Cousy, KC Jones, and Bill Russell. The Showtime Lakers had Magic, Kareem, and even "Big Game James" Worthy. Even Jordan's Bulls threw in a sprinkle of Scottie Pippen. In the post-Jordan era, teams like LA and San Antonio have won by utilizing a dual-threat system featuring talents like Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, and Ginobli. As the NBA embarks on it's annual two month playoff journey, each team searches for their playoff identity by recognizing the importance of a closer.
The role of an NBA closer is perhaps the toughest in sports. Quarterbacks, goalies, and pitchers operate under hit and miss scenarios. If a pitcher blows a game, they know it's their fault, and know one is left to wonder what might have been. Goalies have a simple task: stop the puck. They either make the save or they don't. When quarterbacks fail to lead a potent attack, especially with the game on the line, they have to accept the blame for it. Basketball players often have to defy conventional wisdom with the game on the line. Before his epic Game 5 performane in last year's Eastern Finals against Detroit, Lebron James heard constant critics about his tendency to dish the ball to wide open teamates with the game on the line. The criticism reached a climax following Donyell Marshall's wide open brick at the conclusion of Game 1 of that series. On the surface, James' decision making appears reasonable. He should pass to a wide open teamate when the defenders converge on him. Shouldn't he? As the star, the closer, and the savior of the franchise, Lebron has learned that the fate of the Cleveland Cavaliers must rest on his titanic shoulders. Even when Marshall bricks a three, James, as the closer, gets blamed for it. On the other hand, over the course of NBA history there have been various occasions when a "Donyell Marshall" makes the shot and makes the star look like an unselfish genius. Case in point: the Chicago Bulls dynasty. On two occasions throughout their 90's dominance, Michael Jordan elected to dish the Finals clinching shot to a wide open teamate. In 1993 and 1997, John Paxson and Steve Kerr converted, saving Jordan from a title wave of monday morning quarterbacking. If Paxson and Kerr miss, history might be singing a vastly different tune regarding the reputation of Michael Jordan in crunchtime. If Jordan shoots and misses, the opponent stays alive and he faces questions on why he didn't give it up. This is what makes the role of a closer so difficult. It's the Michael Jordans and the Lebron James' who either bear the brunt of criticism or accept a mountain of praise, even if Donyell Marshall, John Paxson, or Steve Kerr took the final shot.
The other aspect of being a closer lies in the build-up to a game's conclusion. Players are defined by the 4th quarter. A great closer takes over the game and wills his team to victory. An opponent who lacks such a player will always fall to a team that utilizes one. While game-winning shots are compelling, it's the build-up that creats such an opportunity. Witnessing a closer take over a game can be the most exciting event in sports. It's performances like Lebron James scoring his team's final 25 points in Game 5 of last year's Eastern Conference Finals or Dwyane Wade overcoming the flu to lead his Miami Heat to a momentum changing, comeback victory while trailing Dallas by 13 with six minutes to play in the game, and down 2 games to none in the series that fill a programming schedule on ESPN classic. It's even more epic when two legends butt heads, refusing to allow their teams to succumb. Bird and Magic went head to head on many such occasions, as did Russell and Wilt. The best rivalries are even created by closers. This is because a closer, and the legendary plays and performances he creates, determine the success of a team and their place in history.
The Dallas Mavericks and Phoenix Suns have been perennial championship contenders in recent seasons, yet neither has won a championship. Dallas blew a 2-0 lead in the '06 Finals and flamed out in round one in '07 after winning 67 games in the regular season. Phoenix always makes a deep run into the playoffs where they can never seem to take that next step. Both teams have a common character flaw that lies within their respective superstars, Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash. Nowitzki is seemingly incapable of elevating his game and developing a killer instinct. Closers don't settle for risky jump shots at the most critical stage of the game. Nowiztki's inability to propel his team to the level of champion was evidenced on the highest of stages when he was dominated by Dwyane Wade in the Finals and Baron Davis in last year's first round. Nash, on the other hand, has a tougher mental make-up than Nowitzki just less of an ability to score at will. Nash needs to be the complement to a dominant closer because his game revolves around how he stes up his teamates. This is not a problem as long as Phoenix has someone else who can step up and finish what Nash creates. So far, no such player has emerged and the Suns remain ringless.
The importance of a closer is blatant. Basketball is more of an individual showcase than any other sport. While you still need a team to win championships, that team will never be complete without a closer. Look at the great NBA dynasties. Each one had not only one such player, but in many cases two or three. The Red Aeurbach Celtics had guys like Bob Cousy, KC Jones, and Bill Russell. The Showtime Lakers had Magic, Kareem, and even "Big Game James" Worthy. Even Jordan's Bulls threw in a sprinkle of Scottie Pippen. In the post-Jordan era, teams like LA and San Antonio have won by utilizing a dual-threat system featuring talents like Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, and Ginobli. As the NBA embarks on it's annual two month playoff journey, each team searches for their playoff identity by recognizing the importance of a closer.