May 13, 2002

It was a little over a year ago that I wrote the following about Vin Baker in my April 3 Sonics column at BskBALL.com:

"[Vin] is beginning to resemble former Seahawk QB Rick Mirer. Every fall, as regular as leaves falling off trees, the Seattle Times would run an article talking about how this was a 'new Mirer', and he would finally put it together. I don't have to tell long-suffering Hawk fans that such progress never actually occurred. In the same way, optimistic Sonic fans and officials continue to believe that Vin will regain his form. After the lockout year, he was simply out of shape, and would rebound the next year. This season, his hard work over the off-season would undoubtedly mean a return to form, along with the confidence boost provided by being an Olympian. Who knows what to expect if Vin is to return next season. Perhaps Vin will tell us he knows he will return to form because Cleo told him so."

I was wrong on the Cleo front. Instead, the story we read as training camp opened this fall was that we would see a new, 'Skinny Vinny'. Indeed, once we got a look at Baker ourselves, there was no question that he had lost weight over the summer. What remained to be seen was how this would translate to his game. After one open practice and the Sonics' pre-season opener against the Los Angeles Clippers, the cynical and doubting tone I expressed in April was quickly removed. On October 11, the day after that game against the Clippers, I wrote the following about Baker:

"Seeing him twice has been enough to bring me, one of the staunchest anti-Baker supporters, onto the bandwagon. I strongly believe now that Baker is capable of, if not a return to his form, at least providing a solid big man for the Sonics to bring into the Western Conference. I also now strongly believe the Sonics will make the playoffs."

If someone can explain to me what an anti-Baker supporter is, please e-mail me to help me out. I can't figure that one out, and I wrote it. Anyway, I suppose you can note the difference in tone, right?

I try to pride myself on thinking objectively and analytically, as well as taking a conservative stance towards things like this. In fact, in a November column here at SonicsCentral, I wrote of changes in veterans' play, "What would I consider conclusive evidence? Probably about a month.". I had seen Baker play exactly twice over a four-day period when I quote unquote 'jumped onto the Baker bandwagon'.

What would make me forget all of my basketball principles so quickly? It's not like I was even talking about a player I particularly liked, or do like now. For Gary Payton, I might be willing to make some concessions to logic, but Vin Baker? Why?

I think there is within each of us a certain amount of child-like blind optimism that allows us to believe that the most unrealistic scenarios are completely possible. Some of us just hide that inner child more than others. Baker, for all his faults, is an easy guy to latch onto with blind optimism. After all, when we talk about Baker's 'potential', as Nate McMillan did during last Thursday's end-of-season press conference, we're not talking about something that might happen -- we're talking about something that has happened, and still just four years ago, when Baker was arguably a better player than Payton.

All pessimism aside, the fact is clear that Baker was better this season than he was during the 2000-01 season. Of course, that could be classified as damning with faint praise. It would have been hard to be much worse than a season in which he shot 42% from the field as a 6-11 'power' forward.

Glancing quickly at Baker's 2001-02 statistics, you might think he had a pretty good season. After all, he averaged 14.1 points and 6.4 rebounds while shooting 48.5% from the field, solid numbers all. But a closer investigation -- spurred on by the fact that the Sonics managed to play so much better without Baker than with him -- reveals some flaws concealed beneath the smooth surface.

One significant problem is that Baker commands the ball so much. Over the course of the season, he was second to Payton in terms of possessions used (meaning a possession ended by either a field goal attempt, free throw attempt(s), or a turnover). Over 36 minutes played, Baker would average almost 19 possessions. Meanwhile, Brent Barry, one of the NBA's most efficient scorers, would average less than 13 in that same period. Without Baker in the lineup, Barry was more aggressive offensively and thrived, recording his best stretch of the season during the period of Baker's injury and his subsequent return as a reserve. When Baker re-entered the starting lineup for the playoffs, Barry tanked. Coincidence?

According to Barry, maybe not. While he was not quoted directly, a Seattle P-I article during the playoffs said that Barry felt that different sets being run for Baker were hurting his game.

Another flaw in Baker's game that isn't apparent from his base statistics is his propensity to turn the ball over. He finished second on the team with 3.6 turnovers per 48 minutes, a number that jumped to four over the second half -- one a quarter, essentially. Baker's passing rating, as calculated by assist/to ratio multiplied by assists/minute, was better than only Jerome James amongst regulars. Even Art Long, a turnover magnet in November, finished ahead of him, while Calvin Booth and Peja Drobnjak put Baker to shame.

Then there is defense. Considering the Sonics' five main big men -- Long, Drobnjak, Booth, James, and Baker -- Vin's per-48 minute averages in both steals (0.6) and blocks (1.0) were worst. While Baker provided strong defense at times against Tim Duncan in the playoffs, he proved little deterrent against weaker inside players like Dale Davis who notched some of their best games of the season against the Sonics.

None of Baker's on-the-court problems were quite as disturbing to me as his comments to the media after an April 5 loss to the New York Knicks, as quoted in the New York Daily News by Frank Isola. With his team in the throes of a playoff race, was Baker concerned about clinching at least the eighth seed? At least for the time of the interview, he wasn't, instead saying, "I'd love to play in New York." Baker's comments demonstrated that he was already thinking ahead to a fresh start instead of concerning himself with the efforts of his team in the remainder of the regular season and the playoffs. That's simply an inexcusable fact.

To the surprise of almost everyone save Heavy D, and especially me, Baker had a strong post-season. By my statistics, he was even the Sonics' best player in their series with San Antonio. However, most of that was built with two strong games in San Antonio. In the final three games, as the Sonics were blown out twice, Baker provided little resistance. Two good games, my friends, are not going to make up for anything.

Last week, we were able to add another clipping to the Baker file when he missed the team's post-season meeting to officially close the season and vote on playoff shares. It has been noted that his absence was unintentional -- his flight into Sea-Tac from Las Vegas was late -- but he scheduled a flight late enough that it presented the option of making him late; he would have been hard-pressed to make it on-time under the best of circumstances, according to the itinerary we've been given. At a time when he should have been using extra care in attempting to avoid any more trouble, Baker instead put himself in a position to create it.

A number of people have written lately about how the Sonics can't trade Baker without including a valuable member of their core -- Peja Drobnjak, for example -- in their deal. In my opinion, this gets at a problem in semantics with the word can't. It's sorta like saying you don't have time for something. We all have time for anything, we just place other things at a higher priority. In the same manner, the Sonics surely will be able to unload Baker this summer without having to sacrifice an innocent player; they just might not like what they get back.

I've always felt that the Sonics would be best off dealing Baker for somebody else's headache -- Utah's Greg Ostertag, for example -- if they could. By this point, Baker is such a distraction that anyone else would help the team to some extent in my opinion. Secondly, I feel there is a certain pressure on McMillan to play Baker whether he deserves it or not, because of his contract. I've heard many people say they believed McMillan would sit him if he truly did not deserve to play, but I just can't see this. NBA teams haven't come to that kind of understanding of sunk costs.

I've read a lot of reasons in the papers why Rick Mirer, Bobby Ayala, Jim McIlvaine, and Vin Baker were all bound to return to form this season, with the glow and optimism of the start of the season full within them. I don't want to read another one so long as I live.

By my count, Vin Baker has already had two second chances too many.