by Andrew on Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:47 pm
We learned that Scottie Pippen may just have jumped the gun slightly.
I think it's fair to say that LeBron still lacks assertiveness at times. People continue to say things like "He's more like Magic than Michael," but Magic still had his moments where he took over the game and was willing to score/take the big shot in crunch time. LeBron is also more of a scorer than Magic was, so he still has a fair bit in common with MJ in that regard. We saw how he could take apart a team by taking matters into his own hands in the earlier rounds of the Playoffs. The LeBron we saw in the Finals wasn't LeBron at his best and most dangerous. We've seen what he's capable of doing and he simply didn't do it in the Finals.
I'm not sure that it's a lack of a desire to win or anything like that. I'm starting to think it's his ego getting in the way. Ego isn't necessarily a bad thing of course, it's what gives players confidence and if channeled properly, helps drive them to succeed. When it does get in the way, it usually tends to make them selfish and prone to shooting their team out of the game, trying to do too much. With LeBron, I'm thinking that it manifests itself as passiveness and an aversion to taking responsibility.
Basically, I get the impression that it's very important for LeBron's ego that he never look weak or appear as if he's failed, never appear to be the loser or anything short of great. That's not odd or a bad thing in itself, that goes hand in hand with striving for success. In LeBron's case however, it also takes the form of deflecting responsibility and avoiding situations where he has to shoulder blame should he come up short. If he's not taking the big shots, he can't miss them, so there's less for people to point to and fault him for.
The irony of course is that by shying away from the challenge, it does more damage to the image he seems so keen to protect than if he gave it his best shot and came up short. Everyone misses shots, someone's got to win and someone's got to lose. But for someone who's branded themselves with a tattoo that reads "Chosen One", introduces himself as "The King" to players he's recruiting for his management group when they're coming out of college (as recounted in a recent piece by Adrian Wojnarowski), to try and fail, to tarnish that image and persona in any way - as though he's the only great player to ever lose a big game - well, that's just unfathomable and can't be allowed to happen.
Maybe I'm off-base here and I hate to play armchair psychologist, but it wouldn't surprise me if something like that is what's standing in the way of LeBron being himself in big games like the Finals. It wouldn't be without precedent. Wilt Chamberlain was another freak of nature who dominated his competition but is rarely noted for his teams' success (though they did win) or great crunch time performances, more so his individual brilliance and statistics.
In Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball, he recounts stories told by Wilt's contemporaries that attested to him being very aware of his stats and records. John Havlicek described Wilt as being so obsessed with his feat of never fouling out at any level of the game that his defense would slacken if he were close to fouling out, even though he swatted shots with ease and would surely hold all kinds of records had the stat been tracked during his career. Former teammates have said that when he was putting up big assist numbers and becoming the first to lead the league in that category as a centre, he was very picky about who he passed the ball to, getting upset with them if they "wasted" one of his passes and cost him an assist, also checking with the scorer's table often to see how many assists he had and complaining if he hadn't received credit for a specific assist.
He was also described as being terrified of getting the ball late in games and being fouled because of his poor free throw shooting. Havlicek also recounted that one of the reasons he was able to make his famous steal was because he knew that the ball wasn't going to Wilt in a situation where he could be fouled at a crucial juncture of the game. Rick Barry asserted in his autobiography "(Wilt) is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it...when it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, an important game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure." Bill Bradley's book offered similar sentiments.
We even saw an example of it after his career had ended. At the 1997 All-Star Game, when Glen Rice had broken one of his records and was close to besting another, he joked about a comeback with Ahmad Rashad but he also seemed quite apprehensive about the prospect of the record being broken. As Rice got closer and closer, they'd cut to him in the crowd and he looked more and more nervous. The cameras cut to him again after Rice got the record and he looked absolutely devastated. Not that it's wrong for him to care about the record or take pride in it of course but whereas others have smiled somewhat wistfully (or in Reggie Miller's case when Ray Allen broke his three point record, shown a lot of class and humility in praising the record breaker), it looked like a piece of him died when that record went, suggesting his ego was still tied up in it decades later.
Why is all this relevant? Because I think LeBron is a similar case.
LeBron's game is probably a more naturally unselfish and team-oriented than Wilt's was, but I still think there's that desire to be seen as dominant, all-conquering, undeniably great no matter what the final score is. They do want to win, they do care about the game and the final result, but they'd like to at least be able to console themselves with their own greatness and deflect as much blame as possible if they are on the losing side.
For LeBron, I think this is evident when he points to having the triple double in Game 5 and talks about the people who wanted him to fail still waking up tomorrow with their own problems (as if he doesn't). I think the 2009 Eastern Conference Finals are another good example, leaving his teammates to answer to the media - effectively distancing himself from the loss - and then defending his decision not to shake hands by claiming he was a "winner" and "winners don't shake hands". He didn't fail, he's a winner. What about DunkGate? And of course, the fourth quarter passiveness.
Also, for what it's worth, Red Auerbach contended that Warriors owner Eddie Gottlieb "spoiled Wilt something fierce", as he often didn't travel with the rest of the team and got away with behaviour that anyone else would not. Again you can draw a parallel with LeBron and the way he was coddled and enabled by the Cavaliers during his time there. Wilt tasted fame with the Globetrotters before coming to the NBA, LeBron was a sensation in the basketball world before he was even old enough to declare for the Draft.
That's got to go to anyone's head and everyone handles fame and their resulting ego differently. It gave Bill Russell a thirst for winning, it drove Magic to great heights and win big games, it allowed Larry Bird the confidence to tell his opponents he was going to beat them, how it would happen and then go out and do it and it fueled MJ's pathological competitive fire (with Kobe being quite similar in that regard). With Wilt and LeBron, I think it created an obsession with their image and the idea of greatness. There's a love of the glory, but also a fear and aversion of the responsibility.
Does this mean Wilt and LeBron aren't great players, as good as anyone who played the game and bonafide all-time greats? Of course not, it would be foolish to think or suggest such a thing. Just look at what Wilt accomplished, what LeBron is capable of doing. You can't have that much success, put up those kind of stats by accident. But whereas other great players have risen to the challenge, lifting their game or at least maintaining their high standard of play, Wilt and LeBron aren't themselves when the pressure's really on. And rather than preserving their reputation, it actually takes away from the luster and mystique.
So what have we learned about LeBron from the Finals? The fact that he's being criticised despite putting up fairly decent numbers in their own right speaks of the great expectations of him, which I believe is a trait associated with all great players. No one expected Mario Chalmers to put up jaw-dropping numbers and no one is surprised that he didn't. When LeBron is quiet offensively or performs below par, we take notice.
By LeBron's own standards though, he could've done better. I'm thinking that it has far more to do with psychology than any lack of talent or specific basketball skill. My layman's opinion would be that it's associated with ego and narcissism, maybe it's simply a fear of failure. So much has been expected of him from such a young age, so maybe he just hasn't matured enough or has just never really been taught how to handle that pressure and that it's OK to try and fail because people who pick themselves up and try again have a chance to succeed the next time.
That's what I've taken away from the Finals, at any rate. Maybe this will be a learning experience for him, maybe it's too late and he'll always be that guy too enamoured of his own image to take a chance and try to be the great player we see 99% of the time. He has to risk failure and accept failure if that's what happens, pick himself up and come back a little wiser, a little more determined. A LeBron with that mentality is a dangerous, dangerous player. Until then, teams are going to be able to gamble on the notion that if it could make him look bad, he'll shy away from it.
tl;dr version (without the historical comparisons): What Jeffx said. He's got to get over this image of himself along with an apparent fear of failure and not be afraid to take charge in the games that matter most. It's in his mentality, more so than his basketball abilities.