The UNOFFICIAL way to watch basketball better

Nobody on this site needs to be told how to watch basketball. If you did, you probably wouldn't be spending your time on a basketball board (especially not THIS one, with as many longtime and sophisticated posters as we have) but I like the commentary by Russell. I'm also looking forward to Rosalie's indignant rebuttal of the male-oriented tone of this article. Apparently, this guy never spoke to Jackie Mac. I do agree with him, wholeheartedly, about the "ESPN effect" on viewing basketball. That's why I love it when Hubie Brown is the color man. He is fantastic at breaking down complexities into simplicities.





http://www.celtic-nation.com/blog/2012/09/25/sq1256-watching-basketball-better-part-i/





Basketball, like any emotionally rewarding experience, is better
shared. Regrettably the male(s) in one room watching the game while
their spouse(s)/girlfriend(s) languish unattended in another part of the
home, is a cliché that too often drives a wedge into the relationship.
Yet basketball is a fascinating sport—mixing many of the ingredients of
great dramatic presentations. There is deception and intrigue; a battle
of wills, both individual and group; a graceful ballet interspersed with
clashes of brawn; emotional highs and the depths of despair; and all
this wrapped in a colorful extravaganza where hopes are buoyed and
dashed and the elation and anguish are written across the close-ups of
faces dripping with exertion and tightened by the stresses of the
moment. What’s not to like?

Dateline: September 25, 2012––5 days until the start of training camp!

Sadly too often we fail to include our significant other in what
could, perhaps should, be a meeting of the minds and hearts. This week I
shall endeavor to alter this dynamic by providing a primer on how to
watch basketball better. While there are some general guidelines, these
are far more meaningful if there is a framework within which these
generalities can be applied. What follows is the effort to present the
big picture with the support of all the snapshots that make up the
collage.

I have written elsewhere of the sad effect of ESPN on basketball, and
basketball viewers. My discourse this week will try to plant the seeds
for you to become the anti-ESPN—seeing the games within the game and not
just the decorations upon the cake. The first, biggest, and most
complete step to broaden your appreciation and understanding of
basketball is to STOP WATCHING THE BALL. If this seems counterintuitive,
let me offer the words of perhaps the greatest player ever (and no it
is not Michael Jordan) and then some additional points to ponder.

In an interview by NBA.com:

<blockquote>NBA.com: When you watch a game in person or on TV, what are you focusing on?
Russell: I watch where the players set up. The really
good players do as much without the ball as they do with the ball. In
fact, they do more without the ball than they do with the ball. They
don’t need the ball a whole lot. I enjoy watching to see how they set
themselves up to get the ball where they want it and how they want it.
And that takes as much skill as it does to go one on one and in a lot of
situations, it takes more skill because you have to coordinate it with
the guy who is passing you the ball.
</blockquote>
ESPN’s version of the game recap is to show you a dozen made baskets,
mostly consisting of a jump and dunk (pushing the ball through the
basket from zero inches) or the release of the ball and its two second
flight and passing through the basket. Weren’t you pretty sure that the
ball was going through the hoop? I would suggest to you that the far
more entertaining action took place the five to ten seconds before
ESPN’s clip of each shot began; and that’s what I want to help you
watch. That holds the beauty of the game, and understanding those
dynamics will open up an entirely new appreciation of the battle of
wills.

The point of the game is to put the ball in the basket. Ideally you
do this in the easiest way possible. This effort is complicated by the
fact that in the professional game you have only 24 seconds to score, or
at least hit the rim of the basket, or the defensive team is awarded
possession of the ball. From a fan’s perspective this is great—the
entire act of a dramatic production compressed into less than half a
minute (I wonder if opera and the theater might see a surge in
popularity if their acts were shorter).

With no interference (defender), it is generally easier to get the
ball into the basket from one foot than from two, from two than from 10,
and so on. Also, simpler is better (easier). This isn’t gymnastics or
platform diving, there is no degree of difficulty bonus. Actually there
is an exception. Back in the 1970’s the three-point shot was introduced.
Beyond an arc roughly 22 feet from the basket, a made shot is awarded
three points instead of two (you have to admit a 50% bonus is pretty
alluring). This has been the biggest change in the game in the some 110
years since PE teacher Naismith nailed peach baskets to the gym walls to
keep students occupied in bad weather. It has opened up the game which
had become some kind of huge wrestling match near the basket as
everybody tried to get closer and closer to make shooting easier. Still
even from long range, it is easier to shoot if there is not a defender
with his hand in your face—the KISS principle still applies.

The point is, all the maneuvering and moving and bumping and shoving
is an effort to allow one of your players to shoot the ball without
interference. ESPN prefers to show you the “impossible” shots,
basketball coaches (and teams) thrive on the easy ones. In my estimation
the whole full-contact ballet in an effort to create an easy shot is
much more entertaining and extraordinary than that ESPN highlight “can
you believe it” miracle (that it went in).

Tomorrow we’ll begin talking about how team’s free up players by
impeding their defenders. What to look for, and how to decipher the
nuances of the games within the game? I think it will change your
experience of basketball viewing.




bob




.

as the boards least sophisticated poster, i found this to be an enjoyable articule.. and not just cuz it bashe's ESPN.

Bob

Obviously when you focus on the ball you are limiting yourself to seeing 2-3 players. What are the other 7 doing? When a play was called for RA in the past just how many picks does he attempt to rub his man off on? 2-3-4 sometimes and if your only watching Rondo dribbling or holding the ball waiting for RA to break open you really missed the play.

Most on here are well aware of this.

As a former ref many years ago I also liek to see where they set up too. Are they in the correct position based where the ball is? Totally dislike when there is a turnover and the back official get caught up the floor to far and can't get back to view the call play..... then has to make a sort of guess or call nothing at all. We've seen that happen in the not to distant past!

beat

Bob,
Thanks for the link. So far, I like that article very.
I bet that the guy, Lee Lauderdale, knows Red's book by heart. Even his explanations sounded similar to Red's from those clips on Youtube.

As for ESPN, they're not alone. Practically everyone does the same. Very few announcers point to the audience and explain how and why this or that play happened to be.

Disclosure. I, watching Celtics play and being very emotional, often miss those "background" actions. Very often I have to force myself to watch them. During the regular season. Playoffs - forget about it

BTW, there's analogy with movies, plays. I appreciate actors by how they act without words and/or on the background more than by their act "up close and personal".

AK