Warriors with Stephen Jackson: 9-2
Warriors without Stephen Jackson: 1-6.
He's putting up 22 points a game, and if the Warriors get home floor advantage in the West, I believe he deserves MVP consideration. Yet you wouldn't know it from the media coverage. Take this ESPN column by JA Adande, for example.
The article's second paragraph reads, in part, "In the mixed-up Warrior World, one-on-four pull-up jump shots are encouraged, not punished; a player who has been suspended six times is a source of inspiration and stability; and guys called Mully and Nellie are considered the masterminds of the operation."
That player who was suspended 6 times is Stephen Jackson. Adande further piles on by stating that "He was the biggest question mark on the San Antonio Spurs' championship squad in 2003. You never knew if you would get a 3-pointer or a turnover from him." Well, maybe that was because Stephen Jackson was a near-rookie with only 100 games of experience before that season! Of course he looked like the question-mark, compared to Duncan and Robinson; it's an unfair comparison. How about instead noting that he was the starter on a championship team? Eventually, at the very end of the article, after talking about the fans and courtside entertainment, Adande grudgingly gives Stephen Jackson credit. Adande, I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but, you know, 1-6 without Stephen Jackson and 9-2 with may mean that Stephen Jackson is the clue to the Warrior's success.
But no, instead its Mully and Nellie, masterminds. Masterminds?! Don Nelson's coaching record for this year, is 10-8. He's barely above .500 in coaching the Warriors. Nelson's run-and-gun schemes are utterly worthless without the big man that plays like a shorter player. That was true whether it was Nowitski in Dallas (where Nelson would have been fired if Dirk's emergence did not occur), or Stephen Jackson today. Chris Mullins was a terrible GM for the last few years, signing guys like Derek Fisher to mega-deals and not finding a veteran coach early on. And now, they're getting all the credit?
Rarely do I take on a mainstream journalism article, because I don't think it's fair to attack guys for one bad day's work. But this is easy, and don't think I'm just picking on Adande. I have yet to see one article in any publication giving Stephen Jackson the credit he deserves. Why not?
Yeah, the Chris Mullin thing is interesting. About one year ago today, he was considered one of the worst GMs in the league; his team was awful, and capped out forever with bad contracts to Dunleavy, Murphy, Foyle, et al on the books. Even Richardson, their own good player, had a terrible deal that lasted too long.
ReplyDeleteBaron Davis was also considered on par with Marbury and Iverson at this point last season; he was a shoot-first guard that was injury prone or a cancer on his team.
One fortunious trade later, and look at the effects on everybody! This one's a winner, that one is a genius, he's a leader...
Larry bird saved Mullin's career the way Mchale save Ainge's...
ReplyDeleteGreat find MC, and no you are not picking on Adande in any way... this is pretty standard stff for him and pretty much how he landed his ESPN gig to begin with. SJack actually hit some BIGTIME threes in that 2003 Finals. I mean BIGTIME. Adande is an ass.
Actually here is the ONE good SJack mainstream article... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/paul_forrester/12/04/jackson.notes/index.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/paul_forrester/12/04/jackson.notes/index.html
ReplyDelete