Playing the Game the Right Way

I was driving around today and listening to Freddie Coleman on ESPN Radio talking about how he despises the phrase "they play the game the right way" in basketball. I completely agree with Coleman and I started to do some deep thinking. As with all my posts (I know, this is only the second one) I use one topic to explore a variety of topics within it. Today, I want to talk a little bit about the covert racism that comes from playing the game the right way as well as the differences between college and pro basketball's style of play.

Back In My Day (and Other Things Old White Guys Say)


"They play the game the right way." (PGRW, I'm going to shorten it to an acronym for the purposes of this post) Think about that phrase. Think about who people are referring to when they say it. PGRW is praise often levied on white players that lack sufficient athletic ability and must master the fundamentals to compete. Coleman was talking about how Butler has been tagged with the PGRW label. Butler happens to be a mid-western school that is known for its white players (Matt Howard is probably their best player this year, Gordan Hayward was last year). PGRW has also described a program like Duke and a player like Jimmer Ferdette this March. Notice something? Duke is known for having successful white players and Ferdette is the most high profile white player in college basketball this year.

PGRW, I assume, means fundamentals. Google image search "fundamentals of basketball" and about one image of a black player is returned for every three of a white. You're damn right I am going to classify this as "research."

Pictured: Playing the Game the Right Way

I've had people tell me that basketball needs to do away with dunking, because it is ruining the game. They are white by the way, and want to remove one of the biggest advantages black players have over white players (hmmmm). Players throwing down rim-rocking jams may be exciting, but it is detracting from a game that used to be about precision passing, backdoor cuts and set-jump shots.

Pictured: The ruination of basketball

Race is always a complicated subject matter and I am definitely not trying to make any accusations. People that use PGRW are not necessarily racist, they have, often unintentionally, bought into its narrative. The same goes for the term "scrappy." Has there ever been a scrappy black basketball player? Yet anytime a white guy fights for the rebound he is called scrappy, its a term of endearment. PGRW is more of an issue in college basketball than the pros, because college basketball contains so many more white players than the pros.

What exactly is playing the game the right way? Is the right way relying on pure fundamentals, passing, cuts, picks, defense and scraping out every possession against a superior athletic team?  Is being able to use your natural athleticism to make a play that most can't the right way? Take this amazing play by Dwyane Wade:

Is that not how basketball should be played? I'll continue this conversation by stepping away from race to discuss . . .

Pro Basketball vs College Basketball

People love to debate what is better, pro or college ball. People who like college ball better usually talk about how the pro players don't try and the regular season is meaningless. People who like pro ball better usually just point to the inferior quality of play found in college ball.   Personally, I think the NBA is far better, but I also think the two products should only be compared when attempting to evaluate the pro potential of the top college players.

College basketball is a completely different animal. The sport is all about coaching, or more aptly put, its all about over-coaching. Take the difference between a coach like Kentucky's John Calipari and Wisconsin's Bo Ryan. Ryan is considered a great coach, even if his team is unwatchable. He has complete control over every possession. On offense his team slows it down and runs long, drawn out sets that chew up the majority of the shot clock. Coaches like Ryan usually prefer to have their team execute these offensive sets over letting them run a fast break or attack a weakness. I've seen college basketball teams continue to pass the ball in a precision manner over exploiting a mismatch in the post - it drives me nuts and it leads to some very uninteresting basketball (Exhibit A).Calipari, on the other hand, recruits the top players in the country and sort of lets them run the show. He's known for the dribble-drive motion offense, an offensive set that doesn't start until the PG beats his man off the dribble. Often he relies on the superior athleticism and play-making ability of his top stars over instituting complicated set offenses. Yet Calipari gets criticized as a coach who just "rolls the ball out there at lets them play." So I guess Ryan's teams PGRW?

Blake Griffin serves as a specific player example. In his days at Okalhoma he was the best player in the country and the surefire number one pick in the NBA draft. Yet he wasn't that spectacular, or so it seemed. In the Sooner offense he would often post up and wait for one of the perimeter players to pass the ball around the key. If there was an opening to dump the ball in the post, they would get it to their superstar and he would usually finish the job. Griffin never wowed me in college, so when he transformed into one of the most exciting players in the NBA in his rookie year I was shocked. Playing in the wide-open offenses that most NBA teams employ, Griffin was throwing down spectacular dunks almost nightly. Even his missed dunks and charges were YouTube worthy. It was hard to tell he was capable of such exciting play because he was handicapped by the over-coached, plodding nature of college basketball. So, who really does play the game the right way?

I'd like submit this into evidence in the "Why NBA is better than college basketball" case, please

I also understand why fans of the college game might dislike the pro game. It's all Michael Jordan's fault. Once Jordan dominated the NBA in the 90s, every kid wanted to be like him. They saw Jordan's spectacular dunks and athletic ability get him a) championships, b) sponsorships and c) on Sportscenter. Kids overlooked that Jordan was an amazing defender, one of the hardest workers ever and was adept at setting up his teammates until he had to take over the game. Kids coming into the NBA (cough, Vince Carter, cough, Tracy McGrady, cough, Stephan Marbury, cough) thought they could go one-on-one, throw down a slam dunk and win championships. Instead, the NBA developed into an almost unwatchable product. So I get it, except I don't. The NBA is not like that anymore, it's populated with many talented players that are great teammates and incredibly hard workers. I think college basketball fans need to update the image they have of the league.

Considering the reliance on pure athleticism hurt the NBA from 1998-2004, I get why some people would gravitate toward the college game more. But the idea that they PGRW and NBA teams today don't is a bit ridiculous. The idea that a team of players that execute a set offense PGRW better than a team of athletic wing players that know how to exploit mismatches is a bit ridiculous. 

If you win, you've played the game the right way. That's all there is too it.

Oh, if anyone ever tells you that Steve Nash PGRW, they are probably succumbing to racist undertones. Nash sets up his teammates, yes, but he plays a wide-open, improvised style with little regard for defense that is usually associated with players that don't PGRW.

Also, if there was ever anyone that PGRW it would be Grant Hill. But he isn't white. Conundrum!

The Rebecca Black Phenomenon

By now you have to know who Rebecca Black is. If you don't you must have an pretty epic life that distracts you from perusing the Internet all day. Here's the video:

The critical reaction can be summed up by Kevin Rutherford of Billboard:

Black's video for 'Friday' is one of those rare occurrences where even the most seasoned critics of Internet culture don't know where to begin. From the singing straight out of Auto-Tuned hell to lyrics such as 'Tomorrow is Saturday / And Sunday comes afterwards / I don't want this weekend to end' and a hilariously bad rap about passing school buses, 'Friday' is something that simply must be seen and heard to be fully appreciated.

Black's failure has become her success. Her YouTube video has been viewed millions of times, she has been on The Jay Leno Show The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and her song has earned over a million dollars in buys off iTunes. How can such failure be rewarded? It's happened before, remember William Hung? America loves train wrecks. This, and his fucking amazing night life, is the reason Charlie Sheen is so popular now. To fully appreciate the cultural significance of Rebecca Black we must realize what the song actually is:

"Friday" is the greatest piece of unintentional cultural satire I've ever witnessed, for three reasons.

Reason One: The Power of Tween Pop Stars Mustn't Go Unchecked 

She, herself, is a symbol of the ludicrousness of tween pop stars. She's something the comedic terrorists that are currently writing Scary Movie 5  would have dreamed up in between their 8th and 9th bong hit of the morning. I'm sure the brain trust of Ark Music Factory, Black's label, probably had this conversation a few times:

Employee: I found this Indie rock band that would be a great addition . . .
CEO: God damn it I'm not going to say this again, find me a female Bieber!

Ever since Miley Cyrus scored her own show and Justin Bieber hit it big on YouTube, there was a Rebecca Black looming. Every time Cyrus sold out a concert, for every week Bieber trended on Twitter, for every sequel to High School Musical, Black was getting closer to invading our popular culture. Hell, I don't even fully blame the record companies anymore. I blame the tweens who listen and their parents who fund their obsessions with these singers. To quasi-quote Alfred from The Dark Knight:

You crossed the line first. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation they turned to a (girl) they didn't fully understand.

I'm not actually blaming kids for listening to music they like, it's better than them experimenting with recreational drug use in the 7th grade. I'm just pointing out that they created the demand that led to record companies striving for anyway to capitalize on the immense success of tween pop stars. Their desperate attempt to find the next big star focused on various factors such as "marketability" and clearly not "musical talent."

Reason Two: The Real DOA?

In 2009, Jay-Z released a song called Death of Autotune (D.O.A). In the song Jay was talking about how auto-tune needs to die. A few lyrics from the track:

This is anti auto-tune, death of the ring tone / this ain't for iTunes homie, this ain't for sing-alongs

Y'all (I'm white, I can't type this term) signing too much / get back to rap, you T-Pain-in' too much

Personally, I enjoyed this track because I hate what auto tune has done to music.  It was nice to hear a mega star say what many of us had been thinking, it also helps that it is an awesome song. If Jay's goal was to abolish all auto-tune, Black is his biggest ally. Her voice is horrifically auto-tuned in the song, so much so that I am unsure if she has any musical talent at all. Auto-tune is rampant today, allowing people who really shouldn't be signing to dominate our radio airwaves. Many say its killing music, I tend to agree.

If you're interested in a more in-depth look into just what auto-tun can do, watch this enjoyable six minute video from NOVA:

Watch the full episode. See more NOVA scienceNOW.

The absurd levels of auto-tuning in "Friday" is another bit of unintentional cultural satire. It sounds terrible, but also in line when compared to today's pop music landscape. Her video serves as the extreme of what would happen when we try and find music stars for reasons other than talent, and try to artificially insert that talent in the studio.

Reasons 3: It's All About the Beat

Music basically comes down to three features: production (the beat), flow and lyrics. Lyrics are the most important part of a song - unless you are trying to sell records. Commercially, a song with great production and flow will always trump a song with great lyrics. For Exhibit A I present "I Got a Feeling" by the Black Eyed Peas. The Peas are music superstars. In seemingly every one of their songs Will.I.Am drops the beat, girls want to dance, the chorus is recognizable and no one seems to care that their lyrics are horseshit. The most offending verse of Black's song is:

Yesterday was Thursday, Thursday
Today i-is Friday, Friday (Partyin')
We-we-we so excited
We so excited
We gonna have a ball today

Tomorrow is Saturday
And Sunday comes after ... wards
I don't want this weekend to end

Yet how is it that different than these lyrics from "I Got a Feeling"?

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday
Friday, Saturday, Saturday to Sunday

we keep keep keep keep going up
we know what we say say
party everyday

 and

Let's Do it and do it and do it 1
and do it and do it 2
and do it and do it and live it 3
up and do it, do it
4
do it, do it, and do it 5
and do it and do it and do it 6
and do it and do it and 7

Fuck, after reading those lyrics I would assume Rebecca Black was the one performing at the most recent Super Bowl and the Black Eyed Peas a band only famous because of the amount of ridicule they received through social media outlets. Black is the laughing stock, however, because the song is horribly produced. If Black was given a good enough beat, her song might actually be selling for the "right" reasons. I guess this is what happens Ark Music Factory is your label.

We laugh at the absurdity of Black's lyrics, yet they serve as an example of what pop music is. Perhaps her train wreck of a song will force people to come to the realization that really good music needs substance, not just pizzaz. Although I'd have a better chance to getting a conservative to believe in global warming.

Don't Hate on Rebecca Herself

I feel as though I have been harsh on Rebecca, but I don't have anything personally against her. She was a product of the system, a record label trying to create the next tween pop star without paying too much attention to actual music ability. It's like the music industry's version of cock fighting - she is a possession of the record label to be thrown in the middle of a ring and see if she can survive, and if she does the label benefits financially.

Every young kid dreams of celebrity and fears public humiliation. There is a fine line separating the two.