I don’t think Steven was always that guy though. He has natural leadership tendencies, but they emerged with some urging. Part of that urging probably included a request, perhaps a demand, to cease particular habits. (Who among wasn’t more than a little suspicious he was partaking in certain “leisure activities” his sophomore year? His demeanor was CLASSIC pot-heat. Probably what Few meant when he made his “hippie movement” remark.) Making behavioral changes for the good of the order is certainly a leadership trait. And everything we admire about Steven on and off the court (your own Part I of this story) are the very things that will make him an ever more exceptional leader: discipline and practice, self-reflection, becoming who he truly is, developing his full self, having a real sense of priorities, etc.

Players, even at the college level, do have some obligations to their fans. One of those obligations is to suffer our ignorance and idiocy with grace. “Picking up and leaving behind” certain players really isn’t a function of the fans. We have our favorites and preferences, to be sure, but they aren’t what ultimately carry players to fame or ignominy. Pargo wasn’t eschewed by the NBA, after all, because of a faction of the fan base’s disdain for him.

Defining a team leader doesn’t remove the onus from the rest of the players or the coaches. It’s true that fans, commentators, and bloggers will throw terms around recklessly and assign blame for losses without any real understanding of what they actually mean, but that in and of itself doesn’t negate the concept of leadership. Nor does it disqualify the power of very real intangibles like “heart” and “grit”. When you add those to skill, you get something that looks a lot like leadership. And you get a guy like Steven Gray.

And, thanks. It’s good to be back.

Amen.

That said, I think we should bear in mind that basketball, unlike baseball, isn’t just an aggregate of individual events. Things like communication, cooperation, covering and assisting your teammates do play a significant role team performance and outcomes, and thus I think that we should at least recognize that “intangible” qualities of leadership may in fact play a significant role. A player who was locked in on being excellent in his own game might not make some of the same contributions that a player who was taking an active role in exhorting, focusing, and communicating with his teammates. Is there a middle ground that we can articulate between the empty rhetoric of leadership and the idea that numbers are the only bottom line?

My second qualification is more tonal, in that it seemed to me that you somewhat shanghaied the SSF article’s contentions in order to prove your point. Obviously, the success of Gonzaga this year will depend on players and coaches nutting up and striving for excellence individually, and won’t just be a function of Steven Gray’s mysterious floor-generalship. That said, I don’t think the analysis in the article was a particularly egregious example of the message-board brain-dead fodder you’re haranguing against, nor is it unreasonable to contend that a player who is as gifted (and, to date, erratic or intermittently tentative) as Steven Gray might need to raise his game a notch, become more assertive, “carry the team” in stretches, etc.

Very glad to have you back and writing.

give me talent and ability and my team will beat your team that has ‘heart’, ‘chemistry’ and a ‘senior leader.’

i love when people say “i would never want barry bonds on my baseball team! he’s such a bad guy to have in the clubhouse.” or insert other maligned sports stars here – manny ramirez, michael vick (possibly a whole other story). talent > leadership/chemistry/intangibles, every day of the week.

it’s just a lazy way for people to think they sound intelligent when talking about sports, nothing more.