Saturday, February 9, 2013

Cultures of Basketball, Part 2

I'm writing this in the wake of the Wisconsin game. I'd like to acknowledge it in a very limited capacity, because if I dwell on it again I'm apt to lash out in a primal and uncontrollable fit of rage.

At the end of class on Wednesday, Yago strategically (I think) left the Fresh Five with what seemed like a nonchalant final comment. He told them that he had a lot of family and friends from Wisconsin (seeing as he grew up in Madison) and that a Michigan victory on Saturday would really be great for him. "Win one for the Yagger," were his facetious, yet implicitly serious words (a play on Notre Dame's obnoxious and sensationalized mantra, "Win one for the Gipper"). I think this was a deliberate act on Yago's part. He wanted to leave an indelible impression on the Fresh Five's mind that would then favorably translate to the hardwood for Michigan on Saturday. It would be as if they'd be letting him down if they didn't secure a win in his name. He tried to guilt them into a victory.

It seems as if Yago has just as much of a vested interest in this team as I do, perhaps more.

Fast forward to Saturday afternoon. Tim Hardaway has just hit an improbable fadeaway three-pointer after a Mitch McGary high ball screen to take a three point lead with just over two seconds left in regulation. Wisconsin's Mike Bruesewitz in-bounds to Ben Brust running in stride, who heaves a half-court desperation shot in the face of Michigan's Caris Levert, and, just as Ohio State's Evan Turner did to Michigan three years ago in the quarterfinals of the Big Ten Tournament, drains it. My immediate reaction in my head wasn't Turner's shot, but was a flashback to a notable Michigan home game in late February against Wisconsin two seasons ago (a game that I attended), when Wisco's Josh Gasser banked in a three-pointer to beat Michigan. But Dan Dakich, the color commentator for the broadcast of today's game, quickly reminded ESPN's viewing audience that Brust's heave was in fact uncannily reminiscent of Turner's. Watching the replay now (why am I doing this to myself?), it's almost a facsimile of the Turner shot. Not only is Brust just a couple feet away from where Turner released the ball (just across the timeline), Michigan once again made the ill-fated decision to not guard the in-bounder (three years ago it was OSU's David Lighty; today, it was Bruesewitz). Why doesn't Beilein put a defender on the in-bound man?

Unlike three years ago, today's game went into overtime.

(I'd just like to note that I have indeed been overcome with compulsive and overwhelming feelings of frustration and anger, boiling over into a fit of cursing and yelling after rehashing the last seconds of regulation with a couple of my housemates. That's three times now today...It's amazing to me what sports can do to a normally level-headed person).

In overtime, Brust hits another momentous three pointer (also over Caris Levert, who had just been substituted in for Nik Stauskas for his reportedly stellar on-the-ball defense...go figure) to put Wisco up by three with about 40 seconds left. After Hardaway misses a leaning 12-foot jumper and Wisconsin's Ryan Evans misses the front end of a one-and-one at the free throw line, Trey Burke attempts a game-tying three pointer with five seconds left. It clanks off the back rim, Wisconsin grabs the board, and the game is over. Michigan's path to a Big Ten Championship has just gotten a little bit more difficult.

A couple of reactions to the loss (besides the obligatory complaint about the refs):

1) In my eyes, the Michigan State game on Tuesday is a must-win.

2) Wisconsin is really getting on my nerves, and that's an understatement. Wisconsin is really really really getting on my nerves. Think about how lucky they've been against us, what with this shot today coupled with Gasser's bank-job from a couple years ago. The devil-incarnate Bo Ryan (and by that I mean he often looks Satanic) and his band of pesky Badgers have been a thorn in our side for far too long.

But let's forget about today. On to "Cultures of Basketball" stuff. (How's that for a "very limited capacity?")

To the contrary of my last post, we didn't discuss the Indiana game on Monday. Romanticism be damned, we instead focused our attention on the Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain debate. After Yago tallied up everyone's votes, it was concluded that, according to the class, Wilt Chamberlain was a better basketball player than Bill Russell. Yago asked various Chamberlain proponents why they had answered the way they did. The consensus response was that Wilt was the more skilled player, that is to say, if he and Russ were to play a game of one-on-one, then Wilt would come out on top a majority of the time.

The Russell apologists, including myself, rebutted by saying that basketball is a team sport, and Russell was the consummate teammate. He meticulously scouted his own guys — players like Cousy, Bill Sharman, K.C. Jones, Sam Jones, and Tom Heinsohn — and played to their weaknesses, so that the Celtics would be a more complete, and subsequently dominant team. He had the ability to achieve outrageous statistical feats (perhaps not the astronomical 50 points and 25 rebounds per game as Wilt had done in the 1961-1962 season), but instead sacrificed his personal accomplishments for team success. This unselfishness resulted in 11 NBA championships over a span of 13 seasons, and, ironically, thrust the unassuming Russell into the NBA stratosphere as a mythological figure and a basketball prophet. He was the heart and soul of the 60s Celtics; without him, there wouldn't be all those banners hanging in Boston. Wilt was innately immune to this type of ethos.

That's true, the Wiltonians responded, but Wilt wasn't blessed with the stability of a brilliant coaching system throughout his career like Russ was, a system that was so quintessential to the Celtics' success. Who knows what would've happened if Red Auerbach had coached Wilt's Warriors instead of the Celtics? Without Red at the helm, along with his run-n'-gun philosophy, how many championships would Boston have won then? Huh? Ultimately, there were too many moving parts — including his hyper-subservient teammates — to assert that Russell was the biggest catalyst of the Celtics' hegemony.

Unsure of ourselves, Yago definitively stepped in and offered his opinion (and conclusion) to the argument. He said that historically, the majority of writers, analysts, and other observers have argued that Russell was the better player (contrary to our class poll). But our debate is proof that there is certainly support for Wilt. Even Yago himself admitted that he's wavered back and forth on the issue, and that he finally had the wisdom to come to a conclusion.

There is no correct answer.

No one can say who was better, because its impossible to say who was better.

What has shaped the debate, he said, is race. Yes, both Russ and Wilt were racially identical (being black), but their off-the-court personae weren't identical. Russell kept to himself outside of basketball. He lived in a modest home outside of Boston. He didn't particularly live in extravagance. His on-court personality purported himself as humble and subservient.

On the other hand, Wilt flaunted his fame. He used it like capital. He bought night clubs. He bought expensive cars. He commuted every night after games from Philadelphia to New York, because he wanted to live in the City, not the city of Brotherly Love. He slept with an unfathomable amount of women (roughly 20,000, according to Wilt). He essentially gave a big middle-finger to Conservative, Pious America, and it rubbed them the wrong way. Russell, in comparison, looks like a saint. That's why these white authors, white broadcasters, white analysts, white fans and white on-lookers have overwhelmingly sided with Russell. Because they can relate to his morals better. Or, on the contrary, not relate to Wilt's morals.

Now, I don't know how much I can speak to this theory. I'm still ruminating on the whole situation, especially since Bill Simmons was so persuasive in his Book of Basketball that Russell was by far the superior player. But I can certainly recognize that Yago's opinion is a legitimate one. Race is so intertwined into our conscience as Americans, that it's bound to be at the heart of the Russell vs. Wilt debate.

Anyway, that's all for now. Until next time...



No comments:

Post a Comment