In a Slate titled “Zero Effect” (when “Zero Defect would have been a much better title), Josh Levin examines to seeming paradox of Gilbert Arenas being a better guy than LeBron James, but James being a less selfish player.
One of the interesting things about sports is our tendency to assign a weight of personal virtue to almost every skill. Defense is almost always given a higher virtuous weight than offense. Passing is better than scoring. Rebounding and pick-setting are also virtuous activities.
But is there always a correlation? The assumption seems to be that athletic ability, or the ability to score, is innate, but defense requires hard work and discipline, and passing requires a team-first attitude. But is that always the case? Wouldn’t Ben Wallace be more of an asset to his team if he wasn’t a complete liability on offense? Isn’t a lot of defense based on reflexes and athleticism?
Even if one assumes that Arenas is a better guy than James (which may be dubious, since part of the eveidenced marshalled on Arenas’s behalf is that, “He brags openly about the joys of shooting a crying kid with paintballs.” But could it be that James is simply more skilled at court vision and passing than Arenas is, and that this isn’t due to some moral defect on Arenas’s part but God-given ability?