3 From Deep   Pro Hoops Commentary With Unlimited Range

Polls are great tools. They don’t take a whole lot of energy to put together. The results alone can drive reader interest. People automatically give them credence. In a way polls are like modern-day proverbs in that they supposedly tell us basic truths about ourselves and others that we’re willing to put faith in because of the scientific air about them. But that’s also what makes sports polls like Sports Illustrated’s NBA’s Dirtiest Players poll dangerous. I’m sure S.I.’s editors would say the poll should be viewed as a light hearted look inside the sport, but calling someone a “dirty” player is a damaging accusation against one’s character.  What you are essentially saying is that this person isn’t following the rules or, more bluntly, is a cheat.  (And if they can cheat in one arena what’s to stop them from cheating in another?)  As a society we condemn cheaters of all kinds. Turn on daytime television and watch how excited people get whenever they have a chance to feel morally superior to others. We get off on punishing people who we feel have broken the rules. I guess that’s what bugged me the most about the poll. Sports Illustrated is a respected outfit with a rich history. I can’t remember there not being a Sports Illustrated or how many times I’ve been given subscriptions over the years. Its a pillar, an institution. I get that the marketplace has changed and gimmicks keep the magazine  relevant, but come on. If you’re gonna label a guy “dirty” at the very least you should give us some context. We don’t know how the survey was administered, how the data was produced or even what the survey asked. Did the survey come with a definition of “dirty”? Was the term open to interpretation? Was it a phone survey or a paper survey or text message survey? Did Sports Illustrated preselect a list of players and put them on a ballot ( a la the All-Star ballot) or was everyone in the league fair game? Were players asked to rank their top 5 dirtiest players in a particular order or were they asked for just one name? How were the results tabulated? Why did less than half the league participate (173)? To me, these are all relevant questions, questions it would seem are especially important when someone’s reputation is at issue.

That being said, the top five vote getters (1. Reggie Evans, 2. Ron Artest, 3. Andres Nocioni, 4. Anderson Varejao and 5. Kobe Bryant) seem to be on the list for an assortment of reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the relative impropriety of their play. I’ve taken the liberty of breaking them into categories in order to illustrate how little the poll really tells us about foul play in the NBA.

The Enforcer as Dirty Player

When Reggie Evans was asked how he felt about ranking number one on the list of dirtiest players he laughed. At least people were talking about him, he said. Evans  is an easy target. He’s an NBA garbage man. He makes his modest (by NBA standards, that is) living in the trenches. He’s part of a line of players like Rick Mahorn and Maurice Lucas who are still talked about as two of the toughest guys the league has ever had. Given his modest numbers, a dirtiest player “award” actually raises his stock on the free agent market. A team looking for a relatively inexpensive role player would do well to pick up a player like Evans. He’s a low risk high value player with the kind of throwback reputation that’s become a scarcity NBA. At the right price you’d rather him on your roster than on a rival’s.

The His Game is So Ugly it Must Be Dirty Player

Andres Nocioni is the guy you hate to watch unless he’s on your team. It’s just that simple. If Evans is an enforcer then Nocioni is a gnat. I’ve always thought of him as a guy who’s so out of his element that all he can do to survive is foul, kick, pull, shove, step on feet, trip, elbow and god knows what else. This actually isn’t true. He’s a good player. He’s just been branded “dirty” so often and by so many that you don’t even realize he does more than commit hard fouls. Last night I watched Sacramento play Dallas and throughout the game the commentators (a pair of Dallas homers) made snarky, snide remarks about Nocioni’s style of play that verged on zenophobia. When Nocioni got his fifth foul very late in the game, they laughed and said he had five fouls way back in the second quarter. What’s interesting to me is that ever since the NBA started opening its borders to European and South American players two decades ago, more than a few of them have been labeled “dirty” in some way or another. Vlade Divac wore the flopper tag for years. Manu Ginobli is known for creating contact by kicking his feet in the air then selling the foul by crashing to the hardwood melodramatically. The underlying judgment of the hard-nosed international player, I think, isn’t that he doesn’t have as much talent or skill but that he doesn’t  play the game in an aesthetically appealing way. Basketball is a graceful sport after all. Look at its iconic images. Kareem’s hook. Chamberlain’s dip. Gervin’s finger roll. Dr. J’s glide. Jordan’s hang. Lebron’s swoop. I could go on and on. The game’s greats brought such beauty to the court that it inspired musicians like Grover Washington Jr. to write songs about it.  Nocioni didn’t learn the game the way American kids learn it. (I’d even say that he wouldn’t be playing in the NBA if he tried to play an American style of basketball.) He learned how to use his body, how to gain an advantage wherever possible, how to play within his abilities. But he also learned a very tangible but undervalued skill: how to use his fouls. American coaches teach young players how to play without fouling so that by the time they get to the NBA they’re either averse to fouling or under the impression that they should never commit them. What sense does not fouling make, though? If you’re given a certain number of  fouls to use wouldn’t it be wise to learn how to use them? Andres Nocioni certainly does. It’s not pretty to watch him play rugby on the basketball court, but it’s effective.

The Flopper as Dirty Player

What made Dwyane Wade’s dunk on Anderson Varejao early this season special was that it was on Anderson Varejao. He’s one of the most disliked players in the game and I think it’s for two reasons:  his floppy hair and his reputation as a flopper.  Never mind how good he is for Cleveland and how hard he plays night in and night out. Never mind the tips and steals and blocks and charges and all of the other little things he does. All of that lives in the shadow of his Side-Show Bob haircut. I’m willing to bet that if he cut his hair his name will magically disappear from this list and be replaced by Robin Lopez’s.

The Headcase as Dirty Player

Ron Artest can’t win. That he came in at number two on the list says that his reputation as a headcase is too deeply ingrained in our psyche to ever be altered. Artest has a role on Los Angeles and he embraces it. Dennis Rodman had a similar role on the Bulls teams. They are different players and these are different times, but they share one important trait: whether or not they actually are crazy, they encourage the impression that they are. Ron is one of those guys for whom there are very few things you could say he did last night that would genuinely surprise me. Even though he showed remarkable restraint and maturity in last spring’s playoffs, he still strikes us as the kind of person who’s capable of just about anything at any time. What’s unfortunate about Ron being ranked so high on the list is that it minimizes his defensive accomplishments. He takes pride in being a defensive player in a league driven by high flyers and long range bombers. He uses his strength to bully other players. He throws his weight around. He takes the best player night in and night out and often shuts him down. What kills me is that guys never want to admit Ron was the reason they had an off game. If a scorer has a bad shooting night against Los Angeles and a reporter asks them if Artest might’ve bothered them, they routinely smile and deny his impact and, instead, blame their poor shooting on just being off. That’s how good Ron is, though. You actually believe you had a bad night because you had a bad night, not because he harassed you every time you touched the ball.

The Tyrant as Dirty Player

Nocioni’s dirty is a necessity, Artest’s is a byproduct of his size and strength, Varejao’s is the result of an unfortunate hairstyle, and Evans is a throwback. But Kobe coming in as the number five dirtiest player says something else entirely. He’s a nasty mutha. But so was Bird and so was Jordan and so were so many of the great ones. Imagine every night you gets some guy trying to prove they can shut you down so they can brag about it for the next 40 years. Of course Kobe’s nasty. Why wouldn’t he swing an elbow or lower a shoulder. We’re talking about the crown here. You can’t just have the crown. No crown in history has ever just been handed over. And one of the privileges that come with wearing the crown is that you get a little more room to operate. You’ve earned it. At the same time, I think Kobe’s name being on the list speaks to the resentment and jealousy players feel toward him. Calling him dirty tarnishes his excellence, puts a stain on his superlative nightly performances, and implies that he’s still a bad guy despite his best efforts to change his image. Even worse it implies that maybe he’s not so good and that he relies on an unfair advantage to get an edge. My response to that is to stop whining and grow up.

The assumption a poll of NBA players makes (and the foundation upon which its validity relies) is that they have special knowledge because they’re in the game. I disagree. I think that’s giving them way too much credit. As much as I love the NBA, I know it’s like any closed club.  Players are as petty and jealous and opportunistic as anyone else, and an anonymous poll just gives them the chance to cast aspersions on guys they dislike for reasons that may not have anything to do with basketball. In my opinion, asking NBA players to identify the dirtiest player is like asking a blind person to ID a pick pocket in a line up. They’re so deep in the life that they don’t have the perspective, the time or the incentive to make independent minded, unbiased character assessments based on actual experiences. I’m willing to bet they fall back on the same swirl of regurgitated hunches, feelings, rumors, and second-hand stories  masquerading as fact that dominates practically every discourse in this country.