Nicholas Dillon May 1, 2013 WR 100 Dr. Micer Does Being an NBA Player Make You An Expert in Rhetoric?

Steve Kerr is a former NBA player and manager, who during his career won 5 World Championships, and 2 three-point crowns. Kerr now works as an analyst for both professional and college basketball, and writes for the website Grantland. In his personal essay, The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA, on Grantland.com, Kerr argues for the National Basketball Association to change the age limit for players entering the league. This has been an ever-changing rule in the NBA, and has been a source of constant debate. For Kerr, the change is in the form of an increased from the current 19 years, or essentially freshman year, to 20 years old. In of analysis of Kerrs piece, I will examine his use of statistics and his personal observations to show why Kerrs case for a higher age limit is a strong one. His first claim is that players entering the NBA at too young an age lack the necessary maturity required to play professionally. He sets this section up by first mentioning the amount experience he has had in the league. While this may not seem important the fact that he does this helps solidify the accuracy of a point supported by only personal experience. This section appeal to logos because it is a clear consistent message and highly logical, due to deep analysis of his personal insight. Kerr believes that the maturity of young players entering the league is a problem. He talks about how he once had an extremely young teammate ask when our Christmas break was (pg. 1). He also writes about how young players struggle

to handle themselves in the media, speaking their minds without, well, thinking. He proves this using entirely personal experience as evidence. He gets these points across almost in a pressing, like a ambitious salesmen trying to close a deal, and pleading, like a mother begging her 18-year old son not to get a tattoo and wait till he is older. This helps to almost pull the reader into the annoyance it must be for organizations to deal with immature players, and the way Kerr illustrates the situation creates an even clearer image. Kerrs next argument is the money, time and risk of a player, in whole, the cost of scouting and picking a prospect, is a pricey one, and the younger the prospect the more of a burden this is. With this point as well, Kerr continues with the appeal of logos, he is continuous with his thought, and yet again offers more logical points. The appeal of logos as the main appeal of this argument, somewhat weakens it because there is no real change in the rhetoric. For a scout or a general manger (Ive only been the latter), says Kerr, seeing a prospect for one measly four-month season of college ball increases the risk of being wrong about his potential(pg. 2). Here he brings up how scouts have only such a short time to make a decision, and because Kerr tells us that franchises spend anywhere from 50 million dollars all the way to 100 million on players salaries, deciding weather or not to invest up to 7plus million dollars on a one year college player is a big decision. In this claim, Kerr attempts to give us an insight into what GMs and scouts have to go through. In this part Kerr uses both personal experience, and also strong statistics to get the point across. In this section he builds his ethos, because he reveals to the reader that he has had to make these decisions. This strengthens his argument because it fits in

well with the logical belief that you should always look all over something before you buy it. Also using money connects to all, and if not a vast majority, of people and when a fan learns that their team risks millions on their new players, they would also want the prospects to spend that extra year to make sure their favorite team makes the right call. In this section, like the one before, Kerr uses that first sentence not to make his argument, but to yet again get home some statistics, in order to see his evidence more clear. The third claim that Kerr makes is that player development will be less of a burden to a team and the players will be able to immediately contribute if the age limit is twenty. While this is the third argument he makes, it is definitely the biggest, and has a strong logos appeal. Using Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson as examples of players who stayed in college for more then a year, is a strong base for an argument, and when he brought in the facts of their immediate impact, it becomes even stronger. Bird and Magic won eight of the leagues next nine championships after they entered the league in 1979; Jordan won seven scoring titles and three NBA titles in his first nine seasons. All three thrived immediately as rookies (pg. 2). Using primarily statistical data, and smatterings of personal observation, Kerr moves to compare and contrast the early impacts of Jordan, Bird and Magic, with early entrants to the league that are composed of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwight Howard, and Kevin Garnett. Directly showing the early statistical impacts of these players. This argument however is one which lives and dies by its logos appeal. When you look at other successful player who left early unlike Jordan and Johnson, the list becomes quite extensive. Some might say that

Kerrs focus on the mere early statistics makes his argument a weak one, however his focus on the immediate impact, and even though those young players had successful careers their initial impact wasnt as noticeable. This is important because, like a young soldier training in an army, it questions weather or not that immediate impact by those younger players would have been more immediate if they had spent another year in school to train and prepare more for the big stage. Kerr organizes this section by putting the statistical comparison in the middle and organized by spacing each player like a paragraph, which makes it the first piece you notice, and makes the stats the first thing you notice and when you read the argument itself it will make even more sense to the reader. The reason Kerrs argument is significant, is that over the past few years the NBA has been in talks with the NBA Players Association about this very rule. It is also important not just in our current time, but has always been a heated topic. It is a rule which governs how young prospects will pursue their future, and how they will contribute to both their college and professional careers. For me in particular, this is important because it allows me as a fan, and enthusiast of basketball in general to follow the players who are eligible and also who could end up on my team, the Indiana Pacers. The battle hardened veteran stands in front of a crowd saying that soldiers at 18 are not ready for war, in the same way Kerr writes to his readers arguing for a higher age for the NBA draft. While this situation is not as extreme, as one that involves fatalities, Kerr puts forth an attitude that is hopeful and determined. While he may struggle with his constant logos appeals. His writing puts forth a strong

enough argument that somewhere in the county a young athlete will turn down the countless agents that approach him telling what a star he will be, and instead open up his computer and register for classes next fall.

Work Cited

Kerr, Steve. "The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA." Grantland.com. 8 May 2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA>.