The Show.

The culture of the NBA is built on a foundation of youth, flash, attitude and showmanship. The league thrives on excitement - huge dunks, alley-oops, buzzer-beaters, etc. However, despite these things being that which the NBA thrives on, to thrive in the NBA takes something else that isn't quite as marketable or exciting. If you look at some of the NBA's top teams - the Celtics, the Spurs, the Lakers, for instance - there's something they all have in common: a strong veteran presence. It's not something that you can teach and you rarely see it on the highlight films. The qualities in a player or team that the media values often differ from the qualities that truly make a player or team successful - and having veteran players with winning experience that play with these unnoticed qualities will carry a team much further than the plays you see on the highlight films.

The media tends to bend people's perceptions of what's important regarding a player. When you turn on Sports Center in the morning and watch highlights, you see the nicest plays of the day. Often times people will use these plays to determine a player's value, which often times will end up as a skewed opinion of how good that player really is. Instead of looking at dunks to determine a players value, look at a players ability to win games. Look at Andre Iguodala. He can jump through the roof and some of his dunks are staggering. However, he has shown over the past few years that he doesn't bear the abilities to win games or carry a team. However, the media would rather show Andre Iguodala jumping through the roof for a dunk during a 76ers loss than Tim Duncan hitting the same bank-shot ten times in a Spurs win. Can you blame them though? No offense to Duncan but he's boring, and always has been. More effective than anyone, but boring, and that's not a knock on Duncan, it's actually a compliment. He plays a simple and effective game. The point I'm trying to make is that the media can't always show what wins games because sometimes those things can be boring. However, they're significant and need to be recognized.

The top teams in the league have more than an ability to look flashy and make it onto the Sports Center Top 10. What makes great teams is their ability to be more than one-dimensional. Let's go back to the teams I mentioned earlier - the Celtics, the Spurs, and the Lakers - and recognize one particular stat that epitomizes why these teams are so successful now. The combination of Derek Fisher, Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Ron Artest and Pau Gasol are a +100, which is the best in the league as of Dec. 7th. The combination of Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Paul Peirce and Rajon Rondo are a +77 at this point, which is the second best in the league. I think you know where this is heading. The combination of Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Richard Jefferson, Tony Parker, and DeJuan Blair are a +71 which is third best in the NBA. On top of that, these three teams have a combined six players in the league's top ten for individual +/-. It's no coincidence that these teams are amongst the best in the league. The +/- stat in basketball is extremely revealing. A player may average 20 points a game for a season but if he also averages a -5 rating, what does that say about him? It says that he'll get his points but ultimately his offensive ability isn't enough to benefit his team. It says that when he's on the floor, his team gives up more points than they get. The perviously mentioned Lakers combination is +100 through 20 games this season, which means they're averaging 5 more points a game than whoever else is on the floor against them. This tells me two things: the Lakers can put up points, and they can play defense. Many players and teams can only do the first, but it takes both to be successful in the NBA.

The +/- stat is among many other telling stats you don't hear about often mainly because they're not marketable stats. You'll never hear ESPN say, "tune in to watch the +42 Kevin Durant take on so and so." You'll hear, "tune in to watch points leader/ppg leader Kevin Durant take on so and so." That's what people want to hear and that's what's marketable. People want to see offense, flash - the things I mentioned earlier that the league has built a foundation on. However, to win, a team needs more. This is where it comes back to teams being experienced. Teams in this league need to have players that know how to win and that know how to play on both sides of the ball. Kobe Bryant is known as an explosive offensive player, but he knows how to play defense too, which is a big part of why he and the Lakers have been successful. They're at the top of the league again this year, and if this year's standings don't convince you of the need for players like this, let's take a look at who has won NBA championships over the last ten years: the Lakers have won five times, the Spurs have won three times, and the Heat, Celtics, and Pistons have each one once. Each of these teams had a core of veterans that played a significant part in them winning. I can't even think of a team who has won without such a presence.

We are constantly shown the flash but that's not what wins. It's the Tim Duncan's, the Pau Gasol's, the Kevin Garnett's - amongst many others - that win. These players know how to play in a way that will help their team's win, which is different from just getting 20 points a game. It's important to overlook what's shown to us on TV (namely dunk after dunk after dunk) and to instead look at what aspects a team has that makes them win or lose. The highlights are great but come playoff time they're not going to matter as it's the often unnoticed yet significant attributes a team can consistently play with, along with strong veteran leadership, that will carry teams to championships.