November 12, 2007

Things I Know


Shoals' latest piece is the kind of FreeDarko post that I love. It sets gears in motion that quickly lead to a fully-formed idea springing forth from my brains. Read the thing, but Shoals essentially questions whether or not it's possible to watch a game in a context-free environment. In the comments, I argue that it's impossible to watch games without some kind of context, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In my case, the thing that most affects my basketball viewing is having played the game. I don't think there is anyway that I can separate my feelings about playing the game and watching the game. Sure, my skill set is a candle in the sun of an NBA player's but I have a hard time separating things that have happened in games that I have played from games that I watch. I can't watch a Seattle game and not see how their point guards play exactly like guys I've played. I can't watch Dirk work in the high post without trying to deconstruct his moves in a manner that will let me incorporate them in to my repertoire.

My NBA mindset has been so irreversibly shaped by the endless hours that I have played (and the players that I have encountered) that it takes a special player or team to truly resonate with me. I love the Suns and the Grizzlies, Gilbert and Kirilenko because they exist beyond the realm of my basketball identity. It's not to say that I've never seen shoot-first points, running teams, or havoc-wreaking defenders, but these entities are pushed so far to the edge of the hoops mindset that I can't take my eyes off them.

Look to the banner above, for the most part the players depicted are wholly unique in the game of basketball. These are the players that transcend everything I think I know about basketball. When I really think about it, Michael Jordan is the reason that I don't have a particular affinity for guys like LeBron and Dwyane Wade. I've seen guards with an unsatiable desire to win carry their team. What I haven't seen is a 7'3" guy with the passing skills of Mark Jackson. I'd never seen a big guy like Big Smooth stretch the defenses. Of course, my fundamentals-based basketball education will lead me to players like Duncan and Noah. Guys who do what you're "supposed" to do on the court.

Certainly I'm not the first person to be drawn to things they can never understand. But I know that there has to be a reason that this is so often the case. I'll never be able to grasp every thread of fabric in the NBA tapestry, but knowing that there is always something new to unravel is the best part of this thing of ours.

5 comments:

Bebo said...

Hey Trey,

I agree with you. What ever happened to fundamentals on the court?


Bebo

Trey said...

What ever happened to predictability?
The milkman?
The paper boy?
EVENING TV??!

Unknown said...

Whoa, wait a second... "guys like Duncan and Noah...".

Noah? Joe Kim Noah? He's as fundamental unsound as they come. He's a poor practicer (he's already been in Skiles' doghouse for being late to practice), and knows little about anything when it comes to "fundamentals". He relies on his superior size and the phenomenally genes he inherited from his father. He has yet to develop a shot or a move, a sure sign of a player who has little work ethic. He's on the complete end of the spectrum from Duncan, in my opinion!

But, then again, I may just be a hater....

Trey said...

Agreed. He isn't a fundamentals guy, he's a hustle guy. I should have specified that.

Anonymous said...

福~
「朵
語‧,最一件事,就。好,你西.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................