Pondering the Deeper Questions

...of basketball. Right now all I dream about is having a lightweight bike again, man I wish explodinator was here and playing basketball. Houston has a 20 game winning streak! Kobe actually has a winning record that could make him MVP this year! there was a Kobe Bryant blog day, 24 posts in 24 hours and all pure love (athought the pots were sort of cheating by trawling old material).
And then you have Gil's excellent post about the role perception plays in the NBA and the shape of the game.
A lot of what stimulates my strategic thinking and even philosophical approach to life can be found in this beautiful game, moreso than cycling which I engage in often, but there's a sheer mindless pleasure to cycling, an endlessness to roads that make it far more abstract.
basketball is something else, it shifts and changes, its social, it engages the holy trinity of sport that only one other sport in the world does* - speed, strength & finesse. Its tactical, its emotional, it is like gelati, you can put so many different combinations together chances are you never have the same experience twice.
Sure it has its downside too. Soccers greatest asset is that the game last 80 minutes and the balance of power can shift dramatically in any given 30 seconds, though probability wise the good chance you can go to a game and never see anyone score is enough for me to never devote time aquiring a taste for it, only the world cup and itsthinly veiled sanction for racism will bring me to the soccer sidelines again.
And Gilbert Arena's talks about the evolution of the game, I would hope that as a process of evolution natural selection has the bad rules defeated by the good rules and the game becomes better over time.
Certainy cycling is so tarnished it can only inspire an extreme lack of interest. And I don't know if basketball s subject to the natural phenomena of evolution, its abortive attempt at introducing a new ball indicates that at least the ball has reached an evolutionary stable strategy after years that make it environment symbiotically dependant on it.
But the game itself, Gil complains about the lack of enforcers, Phil Jackson in spiritual hoops talks about his inability as coach to discipline the team (being only able to hand out $500 fines to players who earn minimum $7 million per year or something).
And then there were the complaints from Dallas Mavericks that fateful year where Wade trotted to the line anytime dallas tried to defend Dwade in the paint.
Infact usually changes to rules coincide with making the game less legally liable (marketing speak: safer) or allow white guys to still play a useful role (marketing speak: more competitive).
And I'm not sure whether we are watching the game at itsmost evolved, its best.
Certainly protecting players from career ending injuries and lifelongdebilitating pain I find harder to argue against, but then there are also guys that bemoan Jordan changing the game and inspiring a generation of athletic high flyers to come in. The same people applauding Nash for winning MVP and putting the emphasis back on assists, which takes you back to Gil's blog about defining a point gaurd.
In my view the ply maker should do everything to maximise the possibility of scoring on any given possession, so Assists come first on sheer mathematics, but a point guard that can score is better than one that can pass. Same as a center that can grab offensive rebonds and dish out assists and complete low post scoring manouvers. And a center that can shoot free throws is even better.
And then you get players like Barkley that are too short for power forward but still grab all the boards, then will bang in a three from downtown, not doing what their supposed to do, versus a pure powerforward like Shawn Kemp whofinishes allyoops lobbed by Payton from the half line.
I think just on players versatility you could make a case that basketball isn't asgood as it was in the Johnson-Jordan years, but then you have even with all the new rulesguys like Garnett and Nowitzki 'redefining' power forward, you have Vince Carter keeping the swingman tradition alive. You have Nate Robinson trying to play Harlem Globetrotter on point. Different shit is always happening.
The rules should simpl maximise the complexity and fun of the game.
I don't think the game needs direction or evolution. It jut needs players with a quadrangle whose angles are so incomprehensible it defies imagination, that is speed, strength, finesse & creativity. Pistol Pete style plays, like a Morello for the ball who just blows open what you can do with a rubber ball and a hoop like Morello did for guitar in RATM.
But still if you can ind a sport you love, get into it, it will make you that much better a person.


*AFL you soccer pussies