The point in
this article from Michael Wilbon isn't all that objectionable - - that people are no longer tepid towards LeBron James - - provided you can find that point, and you've found it at one of the small moments right before Wilbon rebounds like a bungy cord and changes his stance.
Taken in order, here are some of the there's-no-way-you-can-think-both-of-these-things-at-the-same-time claims:
The Eastern Conference finals just enjoyed ratings and viewership records for cable TV on TNT, according to Nielsen.com…And it's entirely because of LeBron James.
Again, perhaps you’re right, and that’s a strong statement to make. Let’s see how Wilbon backs it up in the next sentence.
OK, the Knicks getting Carmelo Anthony and making it back into the playoffs caused a little bump, as did the run of the Chicago Bulls, whose local viewership reached historic levels. Having so many big-market teams in the postseason mix (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philly, Dallas, Boston, Miami) is always good for a league tilted toward urban fans. But this, or 90 percent of it, is about LeBron.
So, your argument for LeBron being responsible for increased ratings is that a number of enormous markets that had not been in the playoffs for quite some time are now in the playoffs? Was LeBron so hated that the Sixers and Knicks, oddly good enough to make the playoffs each season for the last decade, but too complacent to finish out the season, had their ennui obliterated by their hatred of Bron Bron and decided to reach the playoffs again after a succession of team meetings and dramatic roll call votes? That’s the only way that LeBron could account for “90 percent” of this increased attention, rather than say the successes of any of these teams front offices in finally securing players that could win more than 30 regular season games.
With LeBron and the Heat in the championship series, the NBA Finals has a chance to be the highest-rated and most-viewed Finals since the Orlando-Houston series in 1995 or even the Bulls-Portland series, Jordan's second Finals, in 1992.
The highest-rated championship series in recent memory is one that featured two profoundly team-oriented contenders. And all these comparisons to Jordan (like the one about to follow) are decidedly misplaced, then.
Whatever; the league hasn't enjoyed this kind of wire-to-wire attention since the 1995-96 season, when Jordan, back for his first full season since 1992-93, commanded unprecedented interest. Jordan, of course, also enjoyed unprecedented popularity without villainy.
This is where I really started to have trouble. Wilbon seems to be saying the entire time that LeBron-cum-super villain is what has made the NBA season popular, but he keeps comparing him to Michael Jordan (who, also, could be much more aptly compared to Tiger Woods than can LeBron), who captivated sports fans simply by doing things with a basketball that continued to shock and amaze. Isn’t LeBron drawing this much attention off the court closer to Dennis Rodman wearing a wedding dress than it is to Jordan’s flu game? And he also keeps comparing LeBron to Jordan and then these finals to the 95-96 Finals which did not feature Jordan nor did they feature a stand-alone character that stole all of the attention (with the possible exception of Hakeem, but I don't think the amount of individual attention is really that close at all).
Frankly, LeBron doesn't have any of the stuff villains are made of, yet he has accepted being cast in that role.
“Accepted” is a funny word to use here, because I often think of “accepted” as meaning “totally cool with that,” whereas LeBron continues to whine about his image like he didn’t get invited to the cool kid’s birthday party in 4th grade.
LeBron doesn't play with any noticeable physicality, hardly ever fouls anybody hard, doesn't talk much -- if any -- trash by today's standards, and other than a couple of notable occasions of walking off the court without shaking hands after playoff series defeats (a trend that, annoyingly, seems to be on the increase across the league), has been guilty of nothing objectionable. He simply hasn't fit the villain's bill.
Sure, he doesn’t fit the villain’s bill ON THE COURT. But he remains the only example in all of sports of a player that turned down more money from the only team for which he ever played - - a team based in his hometown - - to go play somewhere else. And he rubbed everyone’s face in it, stopping only to apologize after he beat the Celtics and was able to declare that, at least from a basketball standpoint, the move to Miami wasn’t a totally fuck job.
But the thing that really made me comment on this article is what seems to be a prevailing sentiment throughout sports coverage that Wilbon saves for the end of his piece:
And with that, LeBron James smiled and walked into the NBA Finals, his image having changed dramatically since he appeared in the 2007 Finals: a much richer, more controversial, more hated, more internationally celebrated, more complex and more fascinating figure now than then.
Yes, his image has most definitely changed, but I don’t think his (Suffering Idiots buzzword alert) solipsism is fascinating at all. It’s utterly predictable. LeBron would have been a fascinating figure if he had made the bold choice and risked never winning a championship in Cleveland (unless he could pretty much do it on his own, which he almost did) out of some profound sense of loyalty or the historic importance that a championship in Cleveland might have.
But looking out for #1 isn’t dramatic or interesting or complex or fascinating. It’s timeless and it’s unchanging, and it got sports fans upset, not because they all feel bad for Cleveland, but because they all feel the urge to hate the prototypical selfish athlete made manifest in King James.
