Jameer Nelson - Leadership

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I think more people have taken notice of Jameer's leadership since Dwight left but there was plenty of evidence of it before this season. If you had asked me this question even a few seasons ago, I would have said that Jameer was the leader of this team.

 

But again, I'm not disputing that players are designated as leaders. I'm disputing the idea that it actually provides value.

 

The example of people here not citing his leadership before this year is used to illustrate the influence of the narrative on perceptions. Of course it has no bearing on what's actually happening. It's important though, since we're talking about something that we've all agreed is largely based on perception. You guys believe Jameer's leadership adds value not because you've seen that leadership for yourselves, but because the things you read and the videos you watch give you the perception that his leadership provides value. It's worthwhile to examine the things that color that perception.

 

I agree that the leadership thing is often overstated. I seriously doubt that Mike James is going to step in and provide instant leadership to a team that has a lot of veterans already on the team. However, just because a columnist uses the leadership angle when it really isn't true doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of players that do provide meaningful leadership to their teammates.

 

It certainly does not mean that there aren't real leaders whose leadership provides real value. That's not the point. The point is that we throw around the term out of habit anytime we're talking about an older guy whose actual on-court value is nebulous and his presence on a roster needs to be rationalized.

 

Jameer is a slightly different case because he does actually have on-court value, but the element of rationalization I think is clearly there. Not to the same degree as with Mike James, but it's there nonetheless.

[Emory889 353]

You're right, a lot of what we have to go off of in this thread is based on perception. I'm piecing together the bits of information that I get from the media, like Jameer gathering the team together in Philly every year for some bonding, and combining it with my own life's experiences involving leadership, both good and bad, to reach certain conclusions. I certainly can't say, without any doubt, that Jameer is the undisputed leader of the team and that his leadership is having a tangible effect on the team. That would even be hard to determine if I had access to the lockerroom.

 

What I can say is that leadership, in general, is extremely important when it is time for a group of individuals to come together to accomplish a common goal. I've come across several leaders in my military career that I would have done anything in my power to help them because I believed in them that much. I'm working for one now. He's a guy that I would run through a brick wall for because I know he has my best interests in heart. That is good leadership...and I've seen it yield tangible results in things like military inspections. I've also had extremely poor leadership where I was actively rooting for them to fail so that they would hopefully get fired and we could get someone else. Poor leadership leads to less motivation, initiative, and poor results. The Air Force spends a lot of money on cultivating leaders through various Professional Military Education courses throughout an individuals career and, IMO, its money that is very well spent.

 

To me, it makes sense that a concept like leadership that has proven to have real merit in my personal life would also have an impact in the sports world that also requires individuals to come together, put aside differences, sacrifice, and put the team's goals ahead of individual goals.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

You're right, a lot of what we have to go off of in this thread is based on perception. I'm piecing together the bits of information that I get from the media, like Jameer gathering the team together in Philly every year for some bonding, and combining it with my own life's experiences involving leadership, both good and bad, to reach certain conclusions. I certainly can't say, without any doubt, that Jameer is the undisputed leader of the team and that his leadership is having a tangible effect on the team. That would even be hard to determine if I had access to the lockerroom.

 

What I can say is that leadership, in general, is extremely important when it is time for a group of individuals to come together to accomplish a common goal. I've come across several leaders in my military career that I would have done anything in my power to help them because I believed in them that much. I'm working for one now. He's a guy that I would run through a brick wall for because I know he has my best interests in heart. That is good leadership...and I've seen it yield tangible results in things like military inspections. I've also had extremely poor leadership where I was actively rooting for them to fail so that they would hopefully get fired and we could get someone else. Poor leadership leads to less motivation, initiative, and poor results. The Air Force spends a lot of money on cultivating leaders through various Professional Military Education courses throughout an individuals career and, IMO, its money that is very well spent.

 

To me, it makes sense that a concept like leadership that has proven to have real merit in my personal life would also have an impact in the sports world that also requires individuals to come together, put aside differences, sacrifice, and put the team's goals ahead of individual goals.

 

I would agree that it makes sense on a superficial level, but is it actually true? I still see no good reason to come to that conclusion.

 

I can give anecdotal evidence by saying that when I work in a group setting, the actions of the designated leader of the group have no effect on my actions. But that's not relevant to our discussion here because clearly everyone is not like me, and more importantly, I can be fooled. Everyone can.

 

That's not to say that your experiences are invalid. It's just not enough to convince me that this matters to an appreciable degree in the NBA.

 

From there we can talk about the placebo effect and whether it matters if there is an actual effect as long as the players believe that there is. That's a fair point and one that could be discussed in detail.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

Wake up.

 

I'd link to the story if I weren't on my phone, but Dallas just signed Mike James to a 10-day contract. From the story:

 

"James has played only one game with the Legends, but sources told ESPN.com that he quickly convinced the Mavericks that he can help address the team's lack of veteran leadership in the backcourt after the departure of Derek Fisher last month."

 

This is what I'm talking about. No one (not even Dallas) believes that Mike James's leadership is going to have a noticeable positive impact on an NBA team. It's just something that gets said because there isn't anything else to say about Mike James signing a contract of any kind.

 

Even assuming that I'm dead wrong about leadership, I challenge anyone to make a credible case that Mike James is going to be a leader for Dallas and that it will make a difference for them.

 

This doesn't prove that leadership is meaningless, but it does provide a current example of the term being thrown around in a way that renders it meaningless. I contend that this happens a whole lot more than we notice, and a lot of the time we'll buy into it because it fits with the narrative we have of what's going on in the league.

 

Jameer's leadership qualities, in my opinion, are being overblown because of the Dwight situation. We love him now because he stayed here and provided a counter to Dwight's nonsense. No one cared about his leadership before this season. If that situation didn't happen and Dwight was still here, we'd be having the same Jameer conversations we've had for the past six years: that he needs to go because we need a better point guard.

 

I would disagree with those conversations as well, because I think Jameer does actually add value unlike, say, Mike James or Derek Fisher.

 

I've already agreed on the point that it gets overused and that people, especially the media, use it to write a good story.

 

As far as Jameer goes, I've been a big supporter of him on this team for the very fact that I've always felt he was a real leader on this team. Not because the team made him a team captain, but because I saw glimpses of his behavior that made me think of good leaders that I have had in the past, and good qualities that I try to emulate in my own actions. I would challenge you to go back and find any posts I've made to the effect that we need to replace Jameer.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I've already agreed on the point that it gets overused and that people, especially the media, use it to write a good story.

 

As far as Jameer goes, I've been a big supporter of him on this team for the very fact that I've always felt he was a real leader on this team. Not because the team made him a team captain, but because I saw glimpses of his behavior that made me think of good leaders that I have had in the past, and good qualities that I try to emulate in my own actions. I would challenge you to go back and find any posts I've made to the effect that we need to replace Jameer.

 

I was talking about general sentiment, not anything you said specifically. As I explained to Emory, the point I was trying to make was that we (the royal we) base these evaluations on perceptions which may or may not be accurate.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

But again, I'm not disputing that players are designated as leaders. I'm disputing the idea that it actually provides value.

 

The example of people here not citing his leadership before this year is used to illustrate the influence of the narrative on perceptions. Of course it has no bearing on what's actually happening. It's important though, since we're talking about something that we've all agreed is largely based on perception. You guys believe Jameer's leadership adds value not because you've seen that leadership for yourselves, but because the things you read and the videos you watch give you the perception that his leadership provides value. It's worthwhile to examine the things that color that perception.

 

 

 

It certainly does not mean that there aren't real leaders whose leadership provides real value. That's not the point. The point is that we throw around the term out of habit anytime we're talking about an older guy whose actual on-court value is nebulous and his presence on a roster needs to be rationalized.

 

Jameer is a slightly different case because he does actually have on-court value, but the element of rationalization I think is clearly there. Not to the same degree as with Mike James, but it's there nonetheless.

 

The reason I feel Jameer adds value as a leader to this team, is from both personal experience and in seeing Jameer do things that I attribute to being a good leader. From his summer gatherings, to dragging Dwight out to the court after losing in the Finals, to his mannerisms on the court and in interviews, I am left with the impression that he is a true leader on this team. I think it was important at the time, but probably even more so now.

 

Leaders and their influence aren't always positive. Dwight was in a leadership role based on his position given by the team, and his talent. I don't think he was a good influence on the team and their growth, though obviously his talent overshadowed this immensely.

 

You have to also understand, no one is saying you can watch a game and point to anything in particular and say "They won that game because of Jameer's leadership". It just doesn't work that way. What you don't see, and what I believe you can attribute to his leadership is individual growth and team growth. Now, in no way do I think he gets all of, or even most of the credit, but I think, especially with the young guys on this team, Jameer, JJ, and maybe Glen all play a part in leading them, helping them grow into better players, and better men.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

I would agree that it makes sense on a superficial level, but is it actually true? I still see no good reason to come to that conclusion.

 

I can give anecdotal evidence by saying that when I work in a group setting, the actions of the designated leader of the group have no effect on my actions. But that's not relevant to our discussion here because clearly everyone is not like me, and more importantly, I can be fooled. Everyone can.

 

That's not to say that your experiences are invalid. It's just not enough to convince me that this matters to an appreciable degree in the NBA.

 

From there we can talk about the placebo effect and whether it matters if there is an actual effect as long as the players believe that there is. That's a fair point and one that could be discussed in detail.

 

Being designated a leader doesn't make you one on it's own. Designated or not, people will generally follow, or allow themselves to be influenced by a real/natural leader. Not to mention, working in a group setting in limited fashion doesn't lend itself to much opportunity to get a feel for leadership and how it can influence people, groups and teams.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

I was talking about general sentiment, not anything you said specifically. As I explained to Emory, the point I was trying to make was that we (the royal we) base these evaluations on perceptions which may or may not be accurate.

 

That works both ways in a conversation based only on perception.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

The reason I feel Jameer adds value as a leader to this team, is from both personal experience and in seeing Jameer do things that I attribute to being a good leader. From his summer gatherings, to dragging Dwight out to the court after losing in the Finals, to his mannerisms on the court and in interviews, I am left with the impression that he is a true leader on this team. I think it was important at the time, but probably even more so now.

 

But that's just a list of things he does, not an explanation of why those things are valuable to a basketball team. He's certainly in a leadership role on the team, no argument there. What I'm concerned with is whether the things he does that you attribute to good leadership actually make a difference over a hypothetical copy of Jameer who does not do those things. In other words, if you replace Jameer with a generic player who maintains Jameer's level of on-court production but nothing else, what is the effect on the team? Neither of us can say for sure, obviously. But I'm willing to bet the difference would be negligible.

 

Taking that idea further, what would happen if you were to replace Jameer with Derek Fisher? Derek Fisher is surely a great leader. I don't think you could make the case that there would be a reduction in leadership with that swap, and you could probably argue that Fisher brings more than Jameer in that department. But he's not going to provide the same level of on-court production that Jameer does. He's still going to have a positive influence on the young players and all that. But the team will be noticeably worse, will it not?

 

Going back to my first post in this thread, you can flip that scenario around and substitute a player who will exceed Jameer's on-court production but provide little to nothing in the way of leadership. What happens then? Does replacing Jameer with Damian Lillard make the team better? Again, neither of us can say for sure, but I'm willing to bet that it would.

 

This is where everyone is going to say, "Wait a minute, those aren't fair comparisons because no one here is saying that leadership can make up for gaps in actual on-court production." But that's pretty much my point. The positive effects of having a good leader on your team, if those effects are real, are negligible and are easily overcome by production.

 

Leaders and their influence aren't always positive. Dwight was in a leadership role based on his position given by the team, and his talent. I don't think he was a good influence on the team and their growth, though obviously his talent overshadowed this immensely.

 

Agreed, but I've never claimed that a guy with a bad attitude can't derail a team. That clearly has happened several times even in recent league history. And obviously it's better to have a guy like Jameer who will stay out of trouble, as opposed to a guy like Dwight who seems to invite it, all else being equal. I'm not claiming otherwise, I'm just not buying the idea that a guy like Jameer adds something significant over a neutral player of equal skill.

 

You have to also understand, no one is saying you can watch a game and point to anything in particular and say "They won that game because of Jameer's leadership". It just doesn't work that way. What you don't see, and what I believe you can attribute to his leadership is individual growth and team growth. Now, in no way do I think he gets all of, or even most of the credit, but I think, especially with the young guys on this team, Jameer, JJ, and maybe Glen all play a part in leading them, helping them grow into better players, and better men.

 

I don't see how you can possibly justify attributing any growth or lack thereof to the actions of individual players when you don't know what those players are actually doing in practices and in the locker room.

 

Being designated a leader doesn't make you one on it's own. Designated or not, people will generally follow, or allow themselves to be influenced by a real/natural leader. Not to mention, working in a group setting in limited fashion doesn't lend itself to much opportunity to get a feel for leadership and how it can influence people, groups and teams.

 

You're again insinuating that I'm not qualified to make a judgment on this because of a lack of relevant experience. I think that's a fallacious line of reasoning on its own, but especially so because you are in no better position than I am in this regard. Neither of us have ever been professional basketball players. We're on equal footing.

 

I too have been involved with things with leadership situations. I used to be involved in drum & bugle corps throughout high school and for a couple of years during college. I've played on sports teams, both organized and unorganized. I've worked in settings where I was part of a team working toward a common goal, with a hierarchy and delegation of authority and all that stuff. I know that leadership dynamics exist in these activities, and I've experienced them for myself. But my experiences in those areas are irrelevant to the question of what effect leadership has on NBA teams. Yours are, too.

 

Sports teams are not the military. A basketball game is not combat. As much as we mix the terminology of the two, they are not the same thing. If we were talking about the effects of leadership in a military setting, I would gladly defer to you and I don't doubt your expertise in that area. But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about what this stuff means for groups of dudes who get paid to play basketball. They aren't soldiers and they aren't going to battle against each other. They're playing basketball.

 

I don't want that to come off as too confrontational. I really do have a lot of respect for you as a human being, and your military experience means that you understand things that I will never even begin to understand. I do not dispute that. I just don't think NBA basketball is one of those things.

 

That works both ways in a conversation based only on perception.

 

Of course it does, but I'm not making a positive claim. I admit that I don't know what's really happening.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

Okay... I'll type slower, maybe that will help...

 

(just kidding)

 

I think your biggest struggle is trying to equate some sort of visible aspect of the game with the impact of leadership. It doesn't work that way. Like I said earlier, you can't point to a play, or a win and say "We won that game because Jameer is a good leader". Obviously, if you replace him with Fisher, you lose a lot of on-court production, but that doesn't have anything to do with this conversation and we are going to be stuck in this back and forth as long as you continue to hold onto this idea of direct application of leadership to on-court performance.

 

What you have to look at and consider is how his impact as a man effects others on the team. Do they respect him? Does he help make the team better in some way? Does he help the players individually grow in some way? These are the things can can clue you in as to whether or not Jameer is a leader on this team. These things impact the team and individual players over the course of time, as they grow into (hopefully) better players, and better men. From watching this team, and watching Jameer over the years, I am left with the impression that he does the things that I feel make a good leader. I've already conceded the point earlier that we can not know these things for certain, because we aren't there, we aren't part of the team, we don't get a behind the scenes look, so we are left to our impressions garnered from the brief glimpse to which we are privy.

 

Basketball players are, at their base level, people, just like the rest of us. Sure, they get paid a craptastical sum of money to play a game, but that doesn't change the fact that they are people. When you gather people together in a common cause, some of them will naturally take on a leadership role, be it short term or long term. Have you ever played sports? I'm not even talking about organized team sports in high school/college etc. I'm talking about a pick-up game of basketball, flag football, paintball or any other team based athletic competition. Someone always steps up to get the team organized, work out strategy or plays etc. That person is taking on that short term leadership role. How effective would a team be if no one took up that role? How effective would a team be if everyone just up, assumed everyone else "knew what to do". It would most likely be a disorganized jumbled mess unless someone took up that leadership role.

 

Let's take a step back and look away from sports for a moment. Let's look at another type of organization that works toward common goals. Any military force depends heavily on leadership from top to bottom, from the Commanding General all the way down to the squad leader (and ultimately the individual). The higher up you go, the more people you are responsible for, and the more they depend on your leadership. As a leader of men in the Marines, I took great pride in helping to develop those that reported to me, I took my responsibilities to them as seriously as I took my responsibilities to myself and to my wife. The relationship that developed went beyond the simple chain of command. I've seen others in that same position struggle to get their Marines to complete the most basic of tasks under their charge, while I had complete faith in my Marines and their ability to accomplish any task we were given. I don't attribute that to the quality or Marines under their charge being less than the Marines reporting to me, I attribute that to a lack of respect garnered by that particular leader resulting in poor leadership and an ineffective "team".

 

When you have the respect and trust, as a leader, the team can focus on the task at hand, and work together to accomplish that task. When you have weak leadership, or no leadership, the team struggles to work together for the common good.

 

Now, back to sports, think about a basketball team where no one talks during the game. Imagine if the team had to play an entire game with their mouths taped shut. Sure, the PG could still use his hands to call plays, but what other communication do they have? What type of leadership on the court is going on? Now consider a team with vocal on court leadership, guys like Jameer and JJ who are talking to players during the game, making sure they are focused on their role, encouraging them, leading them. A team playing with on court leadership is much better, much more effective than that same team playing with no leadership.

 

If I see it happening in game, I have to assume it happens in practice as well, you play like you practice. Seeing guys like Jameer and JJ lead on the court leads me to assume they lead in practice as well. It also leads me to assume that they have some measure of respect from their peers. The character that they display also leads me to believe that they have a positive impact on the younger guys off the court as well. These are things I consider when I offer my position that Jameer is a leader on this team.

[magicblue 315]

When Stan exposed Dwight Howard to the media last year, and Dwight got caught like a deer in headlights, who did Dwight call for to try and save his sorry ass? Answer: Jameer Nelson

[CTMagicUK 1,491]

I think in basketball when it comes to simplistic things we expect that all players know what to do when and where and so when a rookie makes a mistake we immediately tend to point out "oh he needs to be doing this more" If Jameer (or JJ or Baby) notices this and goes over and talks to the guy about what he has to do and the problem is corrected then the chances are the next time the situation occurs the rookie will make the right move and, because it wasn't glaringly obvious that he didn't do something, none of us will notice it.

 

That to me is an aspect of leadership, being able to teach. Kevin Garnett is reportedly a great leader, he taught Big Baby a lot (Baby has said that on numerous occasions) and Baby turned out to be a good player. Without that leadership and mentor-ship of Garnett I think there's a real chance that Baby never makes it in the NBA.

 

Where leader overlaps with teacher is that if Kevin Garnett doesn't command the respect of a leader Big Baby may never actually listen to him in the first place.