Thoughts on Basketball
Here are my thoughts on basketball in
general, along with several hot topics that relate to the
game.
The Good
If you want to talk about a sport which,
when done properly, emphasizes the best in humans, then you
want to talk about basketball. Teamwork is the
lifeblood of good basketball. All contributions are to
be valued; even though the contributions may not be equal,
the essence of team is to accept the contributions and the
contributor as being your equal in every way. Concepts
like trust and respect grow from this fertile ground, and in
it, you find the best humanity has to offer. This
leads to sacrifice, which leads back into teamwork, and you
have a vicious cycle toward the positive goal.
My favorite player of all time was Bobby Jones, formerly
of the Philadelphia 76ers and the Denver Nuggets, out of the
University of North Carolina. Jones was the
prototypical "good guy": a devoted Christian,
unselfish on the court, a recognized leader of the defensive
scheme of Philadelphia and one of the top defenders in the
league (making the NBA's All-Defensive Team 9 times).
He was a solid shooter in terms of percentage. He
didn't need nor want lots of recognition. Despite
epilepsy, he was considered one of the top reserves in the
NBA for years - a player who could legitimately start for
most of the teams, but who was content to play his role
behind folks like Julius "Dr. J." Erving. Even now,
when Bobby Jones's name is mentioned, it's mentioned with
nothing but respect. So yes, basketball still offers
us heroes.
The Bad
There has always been a component of
selfishness in basketball played the wrong way. It
becomes a part of ego, an attempt to show dominance over
others, as if it makes one a better person. The
problem that most don't understand is that individualism is
the enemy of good basketball. What you see on your And
1 videos is nothing more than the worst possible corruption
of what basketball is.
And the NBA stars aren't helping matters.
From entourages that threaten to destroy all that a player's
success has built to misguided attempts to showcase musical
skills that don't exist, the life of privilege resembles
that of the most spoiled debutante could only dream of.
It's no longer a competition for the trophy, but for shoe
contracts, rap albums, and bad movies - all in pursuit of
the all-mighty dollar.
Charles Barkley pointed out the disconnect
of the white businessman from the ghetto-culture that many
pro basketball players seem to embrace. Danny Ainge
pointed out - almost 10 years ago - that there were kids
growing up that actually believed Jason "White Chocolate"
Williams to be superior to all-time assist and steal leader
John Stockton. As basketball becomes a seedier kind of
sport, its popularity will wane, despite league attempts to
alter the perception of the image rather than trying to
actually change it.
The Ugly
As I type, the NBA is marred by one of its
biggest scandals since I've been following pro basketball -
the Tim Donaghy scandal. Tim Donaghy, a (now) former
NBA referee, admitted to betting on games, and passing along
information to gamblers about games. He has also made
claims about other officials engaged in
less-than-professional behavior. But the most damaging
claim of all is his claim that the league encouraged
officials to call games so as to influence outcomes - most
notably, Game 6 in the 2002 Lakers/Kings series.
So is it true? My question is, "Does
it matter?" Even if it is eventually proven to be a
fabrication, as I type here today, it COULD BE true.
The officials for the game were either corrupt, or they were
incompetent, and either is a huge black eye for professional
basketball. If the former is true, then basketball is
rigged. If the latter is true, then it might has well
be rigged.
For years, everyone has known that there
are "superstar calls" - calls which favor the presumed
superstar player, whether or not it is the correct call.
Also, there are such things as "make-up" calls - since a
referee knows he made a bad call on one end, he makes
another bad call at the other end to make up for it.
Any way you slice it, this is corrupt basketball. What
makes it so egregious is that when the ordinary fan realizes
what is being done, the reaction is predictably obvious:
the fan evaluates the superstar as less than what he is made
out to be.
If a player is talented, good refereeing
does not hold the player back, but instead, elevates this
player to the level that that player's talent can take him.
While that player may foul out of a game here and there, and
may have to sit because of foul trouble, and that may upset
some fans who paid good money to see that player play, it is
a self-correcting system; the player will have to play
better to stay in games in the future - focusing the player
on improvement rather than entitlement.
And the protesting of calls? It's
again, individualism and entitlement. "I should get
that call, because I am who I am." When you establish
that the call is an objective one, that it doesn't change
just because of who you are, then that opens the door to
shutting down whining, because there is nothing to be gained
status-wise by berating officials. The call/no-call
wasn't made based on who you were; it was based on
what happened on the play.
Instead, the NBA is going to concentrate
on a "no flopping" rule, when what they need to do is fix
the way the game is officiated. lest the NBA's officials and
the NBA itself become their equivalents in pro wrestling.
|