I think there probably is some bias, but I don't think it's that much. Compare Lee to KVH. I seem to recall that KVH got a lot of criticism throughout his career from all sides basically for not living up to what people saw as his potential. KVH had a star's contract.
I think people see Lee as playing better than expected given where he was drafted.
If Lee were getting the same salary as Marbury would still be as immune from criticism? Don't we expect more from our stars?
You are correct on those points B-Jones. However, Van Horn had "Golden Boy" status for his first couple of years in the pros. Van Horn was the real Great White Hope back then! He was just never an elite player like he had the potential to be. I think that is why he was reviled and scorned, by both black and white at times, kind of a "you let us down", and "see, you are not that good" at the same time.
It was totally undeserved. Van Horn was a pretty good player, much better than Lee, but his career was derailed by injuries. Kenyon Martin was all over Van Horn about the playoffs, but meanwhile Van Horn played better throughout the playoffs than Martin.
The other interesting figure is Allan Houston. I recall that he was criticized for his deficiencies, but never so much as he was after he signed the $100,000,000 contract.
The disparagement of Houston for his contract is shameful. He was a clutch, winning type player. Again, he just never became the superstar so many thought he was, and improper utilization ended his career earlier.
You might be correct that if Lee signed a 4 year $60,000,000 contract he would be judged a little more harshly. But he won't get that contract because he is basically the same player as Junkyard Dog.
oohah
12/10/2007 7:52 PM
