All Star Weekend: It's time to bring H-O-R-S-E back...

The NBA All Star weekend could use a tune up. The last couple of All Star weekends weren't really what you'd expect of a showcase of the best the NBA has to offer. Off course, we've seen some pretty dunks, some nice plays and some decent shots, but really, they didn't live up to the hype. Something needs to be done to get the excitement back.

One game I really, truly enjoy playing with my friends if we're done shooting hoops or playing pick up games, is the game of H-O-R-S-E. It's a simple game. One player shooots the ball from a spot of his own chosing. If he scores, the other player has to make an exact replica of that shot. If he fails, he gets a letter. If you fail five times, it spells H-O-R-S-E. If the first player misses, the other player can choose spot and technique. Once you get the hang of it, amazing shotselection starts to happen. Jumping from the baseline, touching the underside of the backboard with the ball and still finishing it. Shooting from the three point line while sitting. Shooting over the backboard, backwards. The possibilities are endless. And me and my friends are only very mediocre basketball players. What if Kobe Bryant, Baron Davis, LeBron James, Arenas and other superstars play this game? They'd hit amazing shots, and because it's very competitive, it's very entertaining. It's the dunk contest plus three point contest plus freakiest shots ever contest all rolled into one. The entertainment value is over the top!

Imagine this: Gilbert Arenas walks up for a half court shot. He blindfolds himself and holds the ball in his weak hand. He lets the shot go and drains it. That's prime time entertainment in itself. But it's not over. Now his opponent, Dirk Nowitzki, has to repeat the process. I'd watch that! And superstars will enter this contest. There are so many bragging rights to be gained by winning this contest, first of all. And secondly, there's very little chance they'd get injured. They could set up a small tournament on Saturday night, having players contest one-on-one in elimination rounds, until two are left to play the finals. I love this game!

Surprisingly, it's not a very original idea. It's been done before. I found an amazing video in which Pete Mavarich plays H-O-R-S-E against Bob McAdoo, George Gervin and Kevin Grevey. I have no idea what year and in what context this contest was played, but I love the creativity of Maravich's shots. He's amazing. Another cool part is the MC and the fact that the players are audible. I love to hear Maravich telling what he's going to do, and actually do it. They definitly should hook up players contesting in H-O-R-S-E with some mics. It would finally bring back the fun, the creativity and the realm of possibilities of the game back into the All Star Weekend.

Here's the video, courtesy of http://www.maravichbooks.com/:

Nowitzki and Bargnani: Genesis of a new type of player?

When you think of a center, you think of big, powerful players. Shaq comes to mind immediately, Dwight Howard as well. What about Amare Stoudamire? Those are centers. The guys that can make things happen in the paint. Powerfull centers have always played near the rim. Olajuwon, Abdul-Jabar, Ewing, David Robinson, Bill Russell, George Mikan, no matter how far you go back in history, the center is the guy that's giving the other team hell at the low-post. The player that rules the paint, both in skills and in size. He can do it in offense as well as in defense. Kevin Garnett brings fear to the opponent every time they try to get the ball past him, and so did centers like Mutombo in their better days, as well as Alonzo Mourning. In "The Basketball Handbook", Lee H. Rose describes centers as being "ideally, big, strong, mobile, good ball handler, with scoring touch around the basket" as well as in the possession of "a trademark go-to move that is practically unstoppable." The new rookie Greg Oden, selected by Portland first overall, perfectly fits that description, as do all the other centers above mentioned.

But the last couple of years, a new kind of center is emerging. In 1998, the Milwaukee Bucks selected Dirk Nowitzki as 9th overall (video of his draftpick). He came from Europe and would play the center position. Don Nelson, head coach of the Mavericks at the time, traded Robert Traylor (sixth pick that year) for Nowitzki. Traylor played in the NBA for various teams for seven seasons, averaging 4.8 ppg and 3.7 rpg during his career. Nowitzki became the first European to gain MVP honours during the 2006-2007 season and became one of the most dominant players in the NBA. Though he had a slow start in his rookie season, he exploded in his second and is now averaging 22.3 ppg, 8.6 rpg and 2.6 apg. These aren't shocking facts, except maybe if you're a fanatic supporter of the Milwaukee Bucks. But there's more to this center than the stats already mentioned. This German adds a new flavour to the game. Watch this video clip shown here below.




Uploaded to Youtube.com by SkeletonFroster

This doesn't look like a highlight reel for a center at all. There's a lot of mid range and outside shots. There's even footage of Nowitzki hitting enough three pointers to advance in the All Star Three Point Contest. In fact, he won that contest in 2006. Nowitzki has a three point career percentage of .381, while his 2006-2007 percentage was .416, a career high. His career percentage ranks 62th on the NBA all time list. And there's not another center near that position, but there is one who can steal Nowitzki's crown in the future. The 1st pick overall in 2006 was Andrea Bargnani, a 7-0 center from Italy. Just his German counterpart, this Raptor has a very high three point percentage for a seven footer. His percentage for the 2006-2007 season was .373.

Nowitzki and Bargnani redefine the center position. So much indeed, that they aren't registered as centers. Because of their range, they are used as forwards, not centers. Standing 7"0, they're the tallest forwards in the league. At the forward position, they have a height advantage over their opponents; playing at center, their outside shooting forces their defender to play outside their comfort zone. Either way, the seven footer with three point range could be the center of the future. At this moment, Nowitzki and Bargnani are defining the role of such a player. They are setting the example and are creating the new type of center for the 21th century.

Even though they are considered groundbreaking, they aren't the pioneers of this kind of player. The only historical player that pioneered the big man with outside range I could find was Bob McAdoo (nba.com bio here, wikipedia entry here). Standing 6"9 tall, he had a career field goal percentage of .503. Since the three point line wasn't added until the 1979-1980 season and McAdoo didn't shoot or hit a lot of three pointers after that season, we can't take this statistic into account. Still he drew his tall defenders outside their comfort zone with his range, scoring many points for all the teams he played for and becoming a Hall of Famer in 2000. Nowitzki perfected the role of center with long range and it's up to young ones like Bargnani to establish this kind of player more firmly. Since both McAdoo, Nowitzki and Bargnani are considered successful players, it will only be a matter of time before more of the same kind will emerge.

Dunking is dangerous

It's an achievement if you can dunk a ball, especially when you're small. I wrote about that here, in an article on 5"8 Area 51. But once you've achieved the dream of being able to dunk a ball, you're not save. It's dangerous. I have two video's to prove this fact. The first shows that backboards can explode without warning and the second video, well, it shows how a dunk can simply decapitate you...





In fact, there's three dunks in those two videos, and even in the slightly less spectacular dunk in the first video, the guy gets hurt. But just in a more pussy kind of way...

The art of not being important

Every basketball team consists of star players (usually the scorers), role players and non-contributors. I'm not talking about professional teams here, since they try to form a team that consists of star players and role players only. I'm talking about amateur teams and pick-up games of players with a modest talent at best. There's always a star player, sometimes even two or three. Those are the ones with the most skills and who score the most. You can be a star player in one team, and just a role player in a team that's playing on a higher level. It's what happened to me. I'm the starting PG in my own team, but when I played for another team on a tournament, I found myself sitting on the bench a lot. It says a lot about my team, indeed. There are also a couple of role players in a team. Guys or girls that don't score double figures, but who can rebound, pass or even more importantly, defend. They find a way to contribute to the game. And then there's the non-contributors. I'd like tot talk about them. They are the people who love the game as much as any other player on the court, but just don't have the skills. It takes a lot of virtue to be a non-contributor who is also a non-complainer.

There are two kinds of non-contributors. The ones who know and the ones who don't. I can be brief about the ones who don't know. They ruin games, period. They don't contribute in any significant way, but they demand the ball. In their own minds, they're star players. They think they matter, while in fact, the team would be better off without them. There's no art to be found in those players.

A couple of years ago, we had a guy on our team that really, truly, totally and completely sucked at the game of basketball. And he knew it. His name was Peter. Peter loved the game. He loved being on the court. He screwed up every play; he missed wide open lay ups (he did hit one once, but in the wrong basket. Irony, yeah, don't I know it); we applauded Peter for every brick he threw, because a brick is still better than the air balls he usually tossed up; he couldn't inbound if his life depended on it and I'm not even going into defense here. I think a newborn kitten would do a better job than he did. I've never experienced a player who sucked more at playing basketball than he did. He was an embarrassment for the game. But, and this we had to give him, Peter knew everything there was to know about basketball. He knew all drills, tons of statistics, a zillion plays and he knew exactly what had to happen to turn a game into our advantage - usually it just took substituting him. Well, since we lacked a coach, we promoted Peter to be our official player-coach/mascot/water boy. We also let him write the recaps, because he was funny as hell.

What lesson can be learned from Peter? First of all, there can be no such thing as being unimportant. You can be a non-contributor when it comes to the actual playing, but there's always a way to be of importance for a team. A good team is more than a collection of skilled players. A good team needs glue. It needs someone like Peter, who entered the locker room with a huge smile, funny stories and great jokes. He was able to ask how everybody was doing in person before the game started. He made sure fights didn't erupt, he helped players sort out personal situations, he was there when things started to get heated during a game to get every body's cool back. Peter was the glue. His skills were so deeply below zero, they froze on you, but he was the one thing that made us a team. A good team, as well.

Secondly, we shouldn't look down on non-contributors. It was very, very clear Peter would never be able to ever excell in playing basketball the moment he first threw a ball, but we didn't look down on him. We helped him where possible, usually futile, but when you're part of a team, you should be a team all the way. Managers, players (all of them), assistants, waterboys and towelgirls, all are part of the process and all should be respected, no matter on which level you are playing. There can be a significant role for everybody.

The title of this article is somewhat misleading. There's no art in not being important. Not important are the non-contributors who think they are. No, the real art is to be like Peter, to find a role that is of importance, even if it's not the role that'll give you a lot of spotlight. Peter found a way to contribute in a very important way, even if he couldn't catch a ball if it was given to him. There's art in that. It takes courage to accept those facts and still find a way to matter for your team. And it takes a real team to give such people a chance to matter.

Beauty: Just Do It

The beauty that the game of basketball can possess is of spiritual level, as much as the beauty of art is. Basketball takes both the spectator and the player to a higher level when played with near perfection. Every action provoked solely by the human will can be a lifting experience for anyone involved. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in Nature: The high and divine beauty which can be loved without effeminacy, is that which is found in combination with the human will. Beauty is the mark God sets upon virtue. Every natural action is graceful. Every heroic act is also decent, and causes the place and the bystanders to shine. We are taught by great actions that the universe is the property of every individual in it. Every rational creature has all nature for his dowry and estate. It is his, if he will. Beauty is found in combination with the human will, from which springs heroic action, something which is the property of everyone of us. If one can do it, all can potentially do it. In reality, not all of us will dunk a ball taking off from the free throw line, or dunk a ball at all. Not all of us will be able to hit three pointers at a consecutive high rate. Not all of us will decide a game with a clutch shot in the dying seconds of the fourth quarter. Not all of us will lead a team to an unsuspected championship. But we've all seen it happen. We've all seen people do it. And these great actions of great men teach us that we can all partake, if we set our mind and our will to it. Adidas said it: impossible is nothing. Nike said it: Just do it. Those are the beaten down, commercialized, simplified versions of the words of Emerson, when he says the perfection and the beauty of the game are ours, if we will.

We can all perfect our game. We can all create art on the court. All great actions ever done with a basketball, could be done by us.

Think about it...

Long distance shots: precision bombing

An official sized ring has an inside diameter of 18 inches and is placed at 10 feet. A size 7 men's basketball has a diameter of 9.39 inches, approximately. There's a 19 feet, 9 inches gap between the three point line (NCAA and HS) and the ring. The FIBA (International competitions) uses 20 feet, 6 inches between three point line and the ring and the NBA even uses 23 feet, 9 inches between the arc and the ring. Some three point attempts are attempted from an even greater distance, usually in desperation.

Why these measurements? Because one of the most beautiful aspects of the game is the long distance shot. A player jumps up and let's the ball go with Swiss watch precision. All elements of his body work together to give the ball the right amount of speed, the proper direction and scientifically perfect arc. And don't forget the subtle rotation of the ball. It starts with the eyes and the brains which have to do a tremendous amount of calculation within a split second. The distance to the ring, the forward speed of the body, the arc the ball will need to have the best chance of going through the ring smoothly; if it's a very good basketball player, he or she will also take into account the position and movement of team players and the position and movement of the opponents. All this is necessary to calculate the probability of the success of the shot. Once all these calculations have been made, the results have to be analysed and judged, within the same split second if possible. If the player judges the shot to be a good one, the body will be set into motion to build up the proper amount of energy and channel it into the ball. The energy finds a way from the jump of his feet, through his abs into his arms, which perform a well-trained movement, which channels the energy through the arms into the hand, and from the hand through the fingers into the ball. At the same time, concentration is needed to get the ball off in the right direction. There's only a small margin of error, if you compare the diameters of the ball and the ring, and the further the player is from the ring, the smaller the margin will get. If the body, arm, hand or finger is just a tenth of an inch off, it will result in a much bigger deviation. To be more precisely, if the ball leaves the hand only one inch off, it will be 2 feet off when it comes near the ring, when shot from an international three point line. All in all, the perfection you see in the two shots in the video down here, both of them performed within a second, takes a whole lot of bodywork.



Isaac Newton would be a three point shot enthusiast, no doubt. There are so much scientific calculations that can be made. The degree of the arc, gravity, friction, all those things are variables when it comes to three point shooting. So far, I've only been talking about the normal distanced three pointer shot with the proper techniques, but what about off balanced shots? Or shots from half court and further away. For example, take a look at the video below.



Caron Butler is not properly balanced, nor anywhere near the three point line - well, except his own. Any decent basketball coach will immediatly take a player who is shooting these kind of shots out of the game. The probability of such a shot going in is terribly low. Off course, without even a complete second to play, everything is allowed, even the most desperate action. But take a good look at the video. How much time passes between Butler grabbing the ball, turning around, establishing his position, calculating and analysing all variables mentioned above, setting his body in motion to shoot the ball and the moment the ball leaves his hand? If you watch the replay, he grabs the ball with 1.5 seconds left. The ball leaves his hand at about 0.7 seconds left. In theory, he could almost have performed that action twice in 1.5 seconds. That's a true artist at work.

Concluding, it takes about 0.8 seconds to perform all the above mentioned actions to get a ball with 9.39 inches in diameter through a ring that's 18 inches in diameter from a 78 feet distance while being off balanced. To me, it only proves my point that basketball is true art. This kind of action is showing the amazing capabilities of the human body at work, which to me counts as art. The artist paints a picture in motion about the human body. If we consider paintings, ballet, poetry and theater to be art, this is all that rolled into one 0.8 second piece of sublime art. It's probably the shortest artperformance ever, but art nonetheless.

Think about it...

Rashard Lewis: A Done Deal?

If you're good in your art, you earn to be payed. Every combination of hard work and talent should be rewarded, in my opinion. The biggest reward for the capability to play basketball one can get, is receiving a maximum contract in the NBA. Last year, there were 21 players with maximum contracts. You can find the list right here. Most players are franchise player, stars who carry the team and let the team perform on a higher level. They substantially improve the overall rating of the team they're playing for.

Still, there are some players on that list who might not live up to their contract. Paying Stephon Marbury approximately 22 million dollar to play basketball next season explains why Marbury can sell his clothes and shoes at such ridiculously low prices. The presence of Joe Johnson, Antawn Jamison and even perhaps Shawn Marion and Michael Redd on the list are also worthy of reasonable doubt. Recently another player has signed a maximum contract with a NBA team. Rashard Lewis signed a six year, 118 million dollar deal with the Orlando Magic. The question is, is Lewis enough of a basketball artist to be worth that kind of money? For instance, will he contribute more for the Magic than Grant Hill did? Grant Hill, a veteran of the game, left the Magic to have a last go at a championship with the Phoenix Suns. Last season, Hill, 34 years old, played 64 games for the Magic and had 14.4 pts, 3.6 rebs, 2.1 ast and 2.2 TO average. Lewis, now 27 years old, played in 60 games and had 22.4 pts, 6.6 rebs, 2.4 ast and 2.0 TO average. According to basketball-reference, Grant Hill was payed 16,901,500 dollar last season. The Magic will pay Lewis close to 16.8 million for playing basketball during the 2007-2008 season. So, just looking at next season, the Magic get to double the points and rebounds they got from Hill for the same money. This way, it looks like a great deal. Off course, the problem is not next season, the problem is the seasons coming after that - through which Lewis will get an annual raise of 10.5 percent. By the time Lewis turns 34, he'll be earning close to 25.6 million dollar per season. Will he still produce Grant Hill numbers by then? Even more so, will he have a played a crucial role in a successful play-off run with Orlando by that time? He'd better be, if he wants to live up to his contract. I think it's too early to judge his contract, but Lewis is surely going to have a hard time proving his worth.

In another telling comparison, basketball-reference gives Grant Hill a .761 probability to enter the Hall of Fame, against a .002 probability for Rashard Lewis. In fact, when it comes to entering the Hall of Fame , Rashard is the maximum contract player with the lowest probability:
Joe Johnson: .003
Pierce: .773
Nowitzky: .611
Iverson: .997
Baron Davis: .086
McGrady: .836
Jermaine O'Neal: .022
Elton Brand: .230
Kobe Bryant: .998
Shaq: .999
Michael Redd: .015
Kevin Garnett: .979
Jason Kidd: .870
Marbury: .329
Shawn Marion: .257
Tim Duncan: .999
Antawn Jamison: .026

Lewis has a lot to live up to. Even though the odds are really against him, I hope he is artful enough to find a way to make the money spend on him worth it.