Jameer Nelson - Leadership

[O_SteveO 106]

They also speak highly of both teams playing hard and everyone giving 110%. That doesn't make those things any more meaningful.

I'm really confused by this statement..

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I'm really confused by this statement..

 

Coaches (and players too) like to talk in meaningless cliches. The fact that a bunch of coaches speak highly of leadership does nothing to demonstrate that it actually has value.

[fan for too long 2 534]

Coaches (and players too) like to talk in meaningless cliches. The fact that a bunch of coaches speak highly of leadership does nothing to demonstrate that it actually has value.

 

Vaughn is great at those meaningless cliches. He should have gone into politics. He can talk for days and not really say anything. In his postgame following the Bulls game he was asked about Harkless and he beat around the bush about not wanting to burn him out to soon and then said it was a coach's decision. R U Serious? What is Harkless minutes per game, less than 20. And he's 19 years old, Come on he has energy for days. For once Vaughn tell us how you feel, the truth will set you free. That is the one thing I miss from Stan.

 

But getting back to Jameer, he has leadership qualities but not really a true leader. Also I cannot believe that 32 points is his career high. Didn't almost average that his senior year at ST. Josephs?

[Zara 74]

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

We're definitely all flying blind here, no question. I have no problem admitting that I have no idea what I'm talking about. But I don't think anyone else does either.

 

The main problem I have with this is the assertion that this loose idea of leadership provides value, yet we can't reliably identify either leadership itself or the value it provides. If it really does provide value, we should be able to demonstrate that value. You can't quantify the benefits of playoff experience either, but you can at least point to a mound of evidence that supports the idea that there is value in playoff experience.

 

Another thing I don't like about it is what it implies about the majority of NBA players. If leadership is important, we have to assume that those players who aren't leaders are incapable of sustained success in the absence of another player on the team who is a leader. I see no reason to believe that's actually the case, mostly because as Ibn has demonstrated, some of those players will simply be labeled leaders after they have success and only because they had success.

 

If we were talking about some new stat and I told you I can't really explain what value it demonstrates and it's calculated differently for every player and team, but it shows a benefit that I just know when I see it, you'd question that and you'd be right to do so.

 

The only difference with this discussion is that instead of a number, we're talking about a vague designation of "is a good leader" or "is not a good leader".

 

I'm honestly a little disheartened by your position. Maybe I take leadership for granted based on my experiences in different aspects of my life, but I pretty much just assumed everyone was familiar with it's impact on some level based on personal experience.

 

Leadership can certainly be defined, and identified, though it isn't an easy thing to identify in terms of this conversation with our ignorance on the interactions between players. It's certainly more challenging a discussion than something that can be put into a numeric framework like most aspects of the game. That doesn't negate it's impact, nor cause it to be some mystical non-existent force of pseudo science.

 

As far as the NBA as a whole, as I stated earlier, the coaches are generally leaders on their teams, and every team places a player (or two) into a leadership role as a team captain as well. It's not a matter of if a team has leaders, it's a matter of how effective those leaders are in helping to reach the goals set by the organization. Using Ibn's examples to disprove the notion of leadership doesn't mean much, because they are incorrectly equating winning to leadership. The fact that some people will misunderstand a concept and apply it incorrectly does not mean the concept is faulty or non-existent.

 

I don't see why the premise of leadership being different from team to team should raise a concern or questions about it's viability. Teams are not all in the same boat, their goals from season to season are different. Some teams are rebuilding, some teams have a legit shot at a title, some teams are trying to get over the proverbial hump and into the playoffs, or into true contention. What is the same, from team to team, is the human element, that natural inclination for some people to stand out and help guide the group towards their common goals.

 

Take the summer get togethers that Jameer put together as an example. He didn't have to do that, and I'm certain he wasn't paid to do that. He couldn't force players to show up either. Yet year after year, he had most of the team up to Philly to start training, bonding, and building a stronger sense of team.

 

The only problem here is that we don't have the inside information that would help us determine if that was effective, to help us determine what type of impact that had on the team. The fact that we aren't privy to that information though does not negate the impact of leadership. So, I suppose, if you have no experience to draw on that would make you familiar with the benefits of leadership, then I suppose the concept might not make sense and this discussion takes on a slight similarity to one of faith and religion.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOHpZQ723es

 

what exactly does this add to the conversation...

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I'm honestly a little disheartened by your position. Maybe I take leadership for granted based on my experiences in different aspects of my life, but I pretty much just assumed everyone was familiar with it's impact on some level based on personal experience.

 

This is incredibly condescending. If your goal was to hurt my feelings, congratulations.

 

Leadership can certainly be defined, and identified, though it isn't an easy thing to identify in terms of this conversation with our ignorance on the interactions between players. It's certainly more challenging a discussion than something that can be put into a numeric framework like most aspects of the game. That doesn't negate it's impact, nor cause it to be some mystical non-existent force of pseudo science.

 

As far as the NBA as a whole, as I stated earlier, the coaches are generally leaders on their teams, and every team places a player (or two) into a leadership role as a team captain as well. It's not a matter of if a team has leaders, it's a matter of how effective those leaders are in helping to reach the goals set by the organization. Using Ibn's examples to disprove the notion of leadership doesn't mean much, because they are incorrectly equating winning to leadership. The fact that some people will misunderstand a concept and apply it incorrectly does not mean the concept is faulty or non-existent.

 

I don't see why the premise of leadership being different from team to team should raise a concern or questions about it's viability. Teams are not all in the same boat, their goals from season to season are different. Some teams are rebuilding, some teams have a legit shot at a title, some teams are trying to get over the proverbial hump and into the playoffs, or into true contention. What is the same, from team to team, is the human element, that natural inclination for some people to stand out and help guide the group towards their common goals.

 

Take the summer get togethers that Jameer put together as an example. He didn't have to do that, and I'm certain he wasn't paid to do that. He couldn't force players to show up either. Yet year after year, he had most of the team up to Philly to start training, bonding, and building a stronger sense of team.

 

The only problem here is that we don't have the inside information that would help us determine if that was effective, to help us determine what type of impact that had on the team. The fact that we aren't privy to that information though does not negate the impact of leadership.

 

I'll concede that my position should be walked back from "leadership is BS" to "there is nothing that leads me to believe that a good leader has an appreciable positive impact on an NBA team", but I see nothing that justifies the conclusion that it definitely does.

 

It is worth noting that the same human element you're talking about is also responsible for people assigning narratives to things even if those narratives don't really reflect what's actually going on. We like stories about heroes and glory, and we're not above fudging details here and there to make those stories more heroic and glorious than they really are. Nowhere is this more apparent in our culture than sports. ESPN's entire business model is based on this concept.

 

Given our lack of reliable information, our inability to reliably identify any supposed positive impacts, and our propensity for making things seem more important than they really are, I don't feel a position of disbelief is unfounded here.

 

So, I suppose, if you have no experience to draw on that would make you familiar with the benefits of leadership, then I suppose the concept might not make sense and this discussion takes on a slight similarity to one of faith and religion.

 

Again with the condescension. I already said I don't know what I'm talking about, and you're already familiar with my "shortcomings" in the manhood department. Further emasculation is unnecessary.

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

This is one of the better discussions the forum has seen in a while.

 

It seems pretty clear to me the effects Jameer has on the team on and off the court. He provides stability and comfort to a team that would otherwise be running around like a chicken with its head cut off. To me, Jameer is a great leader predominantly due to his experience and composure. He displays a calmness on the court that seems to translate to the team playing looser, more confidently, and just generally, better.

 

I think the issue here is that basketball statistics have developed to such an extent that we're compelled to find a way to quantify certain intangibles like "leadership" when, really, there is none. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it means that statistics -- as they're constructed -- cannot reflect "leadership" much in the same way they can't reflect "desire", "hustle" and several others. All of us view JJ as an extremely smart player but there's really no way to prove that statistically, despite how evident it may seem from just watching the guy play. Statistically, JJ is having a very similar season to JR Smith, but we know that he's a much more intelligent player even though we're unable to prove it with any existing basketball metric. Even if you were to use TS% or ORtg as indicators of intelligent play, equating smart play with efficiency would be pure conjecture.

 

I think our drive to be as objective as possible impairs us from seeing something that pretty clearly exists, and demonstrates an even more clear value to the team.

[Zara 74]

what exactly does this add to the conversation...

 

Even though this is not an actual (ie sincere) question, i'll take a brief moment to explain.

 

When Normal Person A elbows Normal Person B to the chest, bad things happen. That is the natural, logical, course of things.

When Exceptional Person C elbows Normal Person B to the chest however, good things like bonding, competitive spirit, toughening up, passion for approval and recognition happen.

 

Person C is a leader.

 

Contemplating the issue rather philosophically, leaders are heterodetermination agents. The very first societies of man (and by that we mean asserted cultural and institutional practices, however few) were built around leaders. The father of a family. The champion of a feat. As civilization expanded in its complexity in order to accomodate man's increased needs, the psychologically inherent conflict between the individual's instincts and the structures of the social system increased accordingly, and the cornerstone could no longer be a person from the group. It had to be (or at least to be assisted in his function by) a person from the past, now dead: the Ancestor; creating the Myth; and ultimately, God.

With God being the ultimate heterodetermination agent, one can understand the enormity of the task of secularization by the european mind (and have rather interesting discussions on how much and yet how little has been achived since the Enlightenment).

 

Within our modern civlization however, even in its most secular neighbourhoods, smaller social sets exist where heterodetermination is still crucial to their ability to function. The army (and consequently the army-like structures, such as sports) is quite notable.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

This is incredibly condescending. If your goal was to hurt my feelings, congratulations.

 

 

 

I'll concede that my position should be walked back from "leadership is BS" to "there is nothing that leads me to believe that a good leader has an appreciable positive impact on an NBA team", but I see nothing that justifies the conclusion that it definitely does.

 

It is worth noting that the same human element you're talking about is also responsible for people assigning narratives to things even if those narratives don't really reflect what's actually going on. We like stories about heroes and glory, and we're not above fudging details here and there to make those stories more heroic and glorious than they really are. Nowhere is this more apparent in our culture than sports. ESPN's entire business model is based on this concept.

 

Given our lack of reliable information, our inability to reliably identify any supposed positive impacts, and our propensity for making things seem more important than they really are, I don't feel a position of disbelief is unfounded here.

 

Honestly, sorry for the tone of that, upon re-reading what I wrote, I agree, it sounds condescending, and that was not my intent. There is nothing un-manly or wrong with having not found yourself in a position to be familiar with the impact of leadership first hand.

 

I'll agree that people love a good tale, we love our heroes and we aren't above a bit of embellishment and make-believe to find them. ESPN is horrible, and if I was sitting here telling you that I thought Jameer was a leader and his impact on this team as such was XYZ because ESPN said so, I would hope to hell you would call me an idiot.

 

However, that doesn't negate the possibility of the impact of leadership on and off the court.

 

I completely understand a stance of disbelief based on a lack of evidence, and I wish we could get JV and/or a player or two to chime in on their thoughts. I would love to hear from JV given his experience in the league both on and off the court, and then from Jameer given his experience with the team. I do realize though, even with that sort of imput into the conversation, we are still dealing with a concept that is somewhat "fuzzy" and can not be defined/measured.

 

Look at it like this. Think about who you are, as a person, and think about the people in your life that have influenced you as you developed into who you are today. How do you measure those influences? How does someone on the outside look at you and measure them? Can it even be measured in that manner? If not, does that mean those people didn't influence who you are as person?

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

Even though this is not an actual (ie sincere) question, i'll take a brief moment to explain.

 

When Normal Person A elbows Normal Person B to the chest, bad things happen. That is the natural, logical, course of things.

When Exceptional Person C elbows Normal Person B to the chest however, good things like bonding, competitive spirit, toughening up, passion for approval and recognition happen.

 

Person C is a leader.

 

Contemplating the issue rather philosophically, leaders are heterodetermination agents. The very first societies of man (and by that we mean asserted cultural and institutional practices, however few) were built around leaders. The father of a family. The champion of a feat. As civilization expanded in its complexity in order to accomodate man's increased needs, the psychologically inherent conflict between the individual's instincts and the structures of the social system increased accordingly, and the cornerstone could no longer be a person from the group. It had to be (or at least to be assisted in his function by) a person from the past, now dead: the Ancestor; creating the Myth; and ultimately, God.

With God being the ultimate heterodetermination agent, one can understand the enormity of the task of secularization by the european mind (and have rather interesting discussions on how much and yet how little has been achived since the Enlightenment).

 

Within our modern civlization however, even in its most secular neighbourhoods, smaller social sets exist where heterodetermination is still crucial to their ability to function. The army (and consequently the army-like structures, such as sports) is quite notable.

 

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That video shows nothing but two teammates messing around during practice. This is exactly what TRBT is talking about when he said people assign narratives to things to create something that isn't there and give it a greater meaning.

[Zara 74]

Others will see a top-5 all-time SG messing with his backup in the roster during a championship-winning year.

 

But maybe Duhon elbows Jodie Meeks all the time too, so hey, maybe you didn't jump on the 'this video shows nothing' call a little too quick.

I do disagree though.

 

 

ps. Another example of leadership-irrelevant videos: