It’s rare that I would say such a thing about a hockey game, but I so thoroughly enjoyed watching the Gold Medal Game yesterday that I cannot help but believe it.  Of course, I suppose such a statement is especially true for those folks from either the United States and Canada.  But still, no matter where you are from, it was a great game.

As I said to Erin before the contest, it is impossible to draw up a better script.  The USA team lost to Canada eight years ago in Salt Lake City.  And here they meet again for the gold, in Vancouver nonetheless.  Not only that, but the USA squad had already beaten the Canadians, just one week prior.  And considering hockey is Canada’s sport, well, that just makes it all the more intense.  Not to mention the two countries neighbor one another.

Canada got off to a 2-0 start, but the US team got a goal in the second period to cut the lead to one.  The third period was full of intense play, but neither team could score.  Until, of course, the USA removed their Goal-tender.  With less than a minute to play the US scored to tie the game and send it into overtime…sudden death overtime.

Though I am not a hockey fan per se, I am a huge fan of hockey’s sudden death overtime.  Sure, I know soccer and American football have it, but they can’t measure up to the intensity of a sudden death overtime hockey game.  For only in hockey is the action so fast-paced that the game could literally be over at any moment.  In soccer the shots on goal are pretty spaced out.  And in American football, more times than not, a team drives methodically down the field in order to get into field goal range to end it.

So here you have one of the best match-ups in sports, some of the greatest hockey players in the world playing for their respective countries.  And the game goes to sudden death overtime.  Beautiful.  I was tuned into every single move.

As you probably know, the Canadians ended up winning it.  Good for them.  Really, it was great for them.  I felt for the American players, but after viewing such a contest as a fan, I really walked away satisfied.  Sure, I wanted my USA guys to win, but I didn’t want them to win so much that I couldn’t handle the loss.  Things were in their proper perspective.  I was able to enjoy the game in all its facets for what it was:  A game.

I don’t always watch or play games like this, but I want to.  For I believe this is the way sports are meant to be played and enjoyed (and the way they are best played and enjoyed).  Should we want to win?  No doubt.  But should we also be able to walk away satisfied after giving the game everything we had?  Absolutely.  And that rings true for both the players and fans.

Yet I think this is necessary. After all, the vast majority of stories my children read (through Erin and I most of the time of course), are not true. They are fanciful and even funny. Usually entertaining and engaging. But not real. Not true.

I thought of this while in the car with my oldest the other day (she is turning six next month). So I asked her, “Abby, you realize that all the stories we read in the Bible are different than the others you read, right?” She said, “What do you mean?” To which I replied, “I mean, they are true stories. They really happened. They are not just imaginative tales, but real people doing real things.”

Like most conversations with my children, it didn’t last much longer than that. We easily move forward to something else. But I believe it helped her tremendously. And I believe it is something I must return to consistently. Reminders of the Bible’s historical reliability certainly cannot hurt.

All the parents out there may have already known this for years, but if you have young ones like myself and haven’t thought to do this, check it out and let me know how they respond. And be sure to do so more than once.

One of the things that comes with every Olympics is personal stories of perseverance. It is inevitable and, it seems, constant, during the Olympic broadcasts. Every athlete has a story. And many of the athletes have a particular setback that they were able to overcome or endure in order to make it to the Olympics. An injury, a death in the family, failure four years ago, etc.

While watching one of these stories the other day, it hit me…I thoroughly enjoy these stories of perseverance, yet I don’t really want to be one of those folks who have to persevere and endure such difficult things.

That goes for most of it doesn’t it? We are inspired by tales of overcoming difficult obstacles, yet we tend to despise the obstacles in our own lives, the very things that can make us people of perseverance. We seem to simply want little more than everything coming easy. We are content with being inspired, when we could become inspiring.

According to Scripture, God is jealous to make His people people of perseverance. We are even told that Christians should count various kinds of trials joy because they are used by God to make us people of maturity and perseverance (James 1:2-4). While watching the Olympics, I am wise to use the plethora of perseverance stories to remind myself that I should not despise the means God ordains to making me a man that, just maybe, can inspire others and not just be inspired. Maybe you can watch and be reminded of the same.

1)  Everyone agrees that there is a white-guy bias in basketball. It is a running joke and oftentimes, true.

2)  Our biases are much more powerful than we realize. Part 1 and Part 2.

3)  The evaluation of International talent is not as cut-and-dry as it might sound. International players may even have an inevitable advantage in their ability to reach largely untouched markets for the NBA.  A sound business strategy no doubt.

4)  Athleticism is sometimes an over-valued trait in the NBA.  The best teams are the most diverse (though usually they have players who are both great athletes and highly skilled).

5)  The NBA is a business, so we must understand the decisions of those in the business by looking at their incentives.

So what have I learned from all of this?  Well, I don’t think I have learned anything new, but I have been reminded of something I have known for quite some time.

It is this:  who ends up playing or not playing in the NBA, white or black, American or International, is a very complicated matter and one that no one, except the Lord, can fully comprehend. There are just no easy answers when it comes to this question of who makes it and who doesn’t.  There are social factors, business factors, talent and team factors, all sorts of factors at work.

I have known and heard of countless players who have NBA talent, but who have ended up on the streets.  I have also played against many a player who has never made the NBA, who might even have gotten cut from summer league, but who is fully capable of performing there.  I have even been that one guy (and would certainly like to be him again!) who has played in the NBA and has no doubt had other players at home saying about him, ‘I could outplay him right now!’  And you know, they may have been right.  But all the various things lined up for me to play in the NBA.  And so it is, or is not, for many others.

The reality is that in the basketball world that are players that are truly head and shoulders above the rest.  You know who they are.  Most times, they just cannot help but rise above the rest.  They are so good that their talent paves the way for their own ideal playing situations.  Then there are the second-tier individuals who are very, very good, obviously good, but just not as great as the best.  They usually make it and if things line up perfectly for them, they can become top-tier stars.

In another group, the final and fullest group, there are players from all over the world who are fully capable of playing in the NBA, sometimes at a very high level, but who just need the perfect opportunity to make it happen.  The right team, the right timing, the role, etc.  And the reality is, they have very little to do with whether or not they ever get that opportunity. Numerous things have to line up in order for their dream to be realized.  And to be maintained.

I count myself among that group.  And I count it a tremendous blessing from God to have had the opportunity to play in the NBA.  As I have mentioned, I would certainly enjoy playing there again, but I realize that the fact that I have played there doesn’t mean that I am better than everyone else who has not.  That’s just not true.  As is the case in any business, who makes it and who doesn’t is not defined solely on the basis of talent.  Numerous other factors are at work.  We have taken a look at a few of those factors, but though this series has lasted a month, you can be sure that we have only scratched the surface.

In the end, I still believe the NBA is the best basketball in the world.  But I also believe it can still be better.  I doubt any NBA executives will be knocking down my door for advice because of these posts, but at the very least, I hope they serve any who read them by giving insight into how they view and understand the NBA game and most importantly, life itself.

So far I have said that four specific things. First, there is clearly a stigma or preconception that white American players must overcome in order to play in today’s NBA. Everyone in the basketball world agrees about this. Second, that preconception or bias probably plays a much bigger role in the evaluation of talent than most basketball people think. I enlisted the help of Malcolm Gladwell to highlight why that is. Third, there is a definite possibility that NBA executives and scouts are over-estimating how good International talent actually is (over against both the white and black American players, because they are replacing both). And fourth, I believe that athleticism is valued to too great a degree in much of today’s current NBA.

Today I offer this:

Because the NBA is a business in pursuit of profit, the league is driven by market forces just like any other business. So also, the executives and scouts and managers, etc. are driven by the incentives given them, usually that of keeping their job or getting a better one. In short, evaluating talent and putting together a basketball team in the NBA is never as simple as it sounds.

This might seem like a very obvious thing, but from my standpoint, it is one that few people seem to truly consider when they look at the professional game or criticize their hometown team. I understand why. For I, like everyone else, grew up playing a game for the game itself. Usually, we play the game because we enjoy it. And we seek to become the best team we can be in order to simply enjoy accomplishing something together.

Few people really understand what it is like to compete for a living. That is, to play for pay. Or to be involved in any way, shape, or close form in that play for pay. As anyone who does so will tell you, professional sports is far from playing on the playground or playing in High School. It’s just an entirely different world because it has completely different incentives.

This is true not only for the players, but also for everyone else involved. The General Managers, coaches, scouts, league officials. Everyone. The game is not simply a game, because it is inevitably tied to the bottom line. It’s play, but not really. For true play is an end in and of itself. When you really play, you play just for the sake of play. You play to lose yourself in the joy of it. And in professional play, if you fail to make money, your play stops. Or if your team loses, you might well end up losing your job. This changes everything.

I could go on a whole lot more about this from a player’s standpoint, but right now, I want us to consider what that means for the decision makers involved.

First, consider what this means for the league executive or the rules committee for that matter. Are you concerned about the purity of the game and what rule changes or emphases leads to the most beautiful form of basketball? Maybe. But if your ideas don’t lead to people in the seats, your ideas need to change. The 24 second shot clock was not introduced to the professional game because the rule makers thought it would be best for the game. It was introduced because the owners knew they needed more points in order to make more money. Now, I personally love that 24 second shot clock, but let’s be honest enough to admit what drove such a decision. Not basketball, but the bottom line. Not play, but pay. The same holds true for the defensive rules. More dunks makes more revenue, so let’s change the rules to have more dunks. On and on we could go.

Second, think about what this means for our discussion concerning International players.  Might they have an advantage simply because they are International, simply because they gather in a fan base largely untouched?  I would think so.  And I perfectly understand it.

Third, consider what this means for those looking for talent or hiring talent. Are they looking for talent in a bubble? No way. They are responding to forces at work beyond them. They are looking for talent that will fit into the NBA business. Not only that, but they are looking for talent that will protect them. Meaning, if things don’t go well for the players they say are good, they can say, “Hey, we gave you what you wanted, what you were looking for. Maybe it was you who just failed to develop it or use it properly.” Sometimes they are right, but sometimes they are wrong. Most times, they can keep their job.

A good general manager is one who compiles a good mix of talent and a coach that knows how to mix such a concoction best for the good of all. But oftentimes, a general manager starts getting concerned about his job (understandably). So what might he do? Hire the best talent he can find. Or at least a bunch of players that have played well elsewhere. That are proven. So if it doesn’t work, maybe the coach is to blame and he keeps his job. “What more could I give the coach to work with?“ he might say.

Would anyone ever admit to this? Maybe a few, but probably not most. But because the game is a professional game, such things are inevitable. People respond to the incentives given them. Even the rise in players who can dunk great and shoot poorly can be explained by the law of incentives. They watch an NBA game and mold their games to fit what is wanted there. Pretty simple.

Some people might ask me, do I believe that professional sports inevitably corrupts those sports? In a sense, absolutely. Don’t you? Isn’t it obvious? Don’t we all understand this instinctively? When play is tied up in pay, it is impossible to be pure play. This doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. After all, it is not the money’s fault. An inanimate object cannot be blamed. It just means that we ought to recognize what we are actually doing and do our best to combine the two.

What would such a positive correlation look like for the NBA? Well, as I have stated, I think that some quarters of the NBA have swung to an unhealthy extreme. Fans everywhere still enjoy the NBA game, but many basketball fans are losing taste for the style set before them. Of course, we still want to see great individual performances, but not at the expense of good team basketball. Not at the expense of having a good mix of basketball talent. Do we still want to see great athletes? Absolutely. The great dunks are welcomed. But we also want to see great shooting and passing and spacing and use of screens. In general, good team basketball as well.

The best teams to watch in the NBA are loaded not simply with great athletes, but with a great mix of players. The Orlando Magic went to the finals last year not simply because they had great individual performers, but because they played well as a team and they also shot the basketball as well as any team in the league. Were they athletic? Sure, but not at the expense of other vital skills.

In short, I believe a desire for profit and a desire for great play can and should coexist. But it will take great effort on the part of everyone involved. Will it mean more American white guys in the NBA? Maybe, but maybe not. Black or white, I don’t care. The best basketball is always the goal. And I for one am convinced that the best basketball will also be best long-term for the bottom line.

Here are the most helpful articles I have found.

Is the iPad good for Amazon? (over at CNET)

Kindle not ready to Surrender to iPad (from the LA Times)

The Top 10 Reasons the iPad will Put the Kindle out of Business (from TechCrunch)

The iPad vs. the Kindle: How Should Amazon Respond? (also from TechCrunch)

If nothing else, I look forward to reviewing this post in about 10 years to see how close or how far off these folks were.

“The great guide of the world is fashion and its god is respectability–two phantoms at which brave men laugh! How many of you look around on society to know what to do? You watch the general current and then float upon it! You study the popular breeze and shift your sails to suit it. True men do not do so! You ask, ‘Is it fashionable? If it is fashionable, it must be done.’ Fashion is the law of multitudes, but it is nothing more than the common consent of fools.”

I agree with Gene Wojciechowski’s take regarding MLB’s embracing of Mark McGwire and continued rejection of Pete Rose.

I am not sure what to think about this lengthy Outside the Lines article regarding compensation for high-level student-athletes. But it was very interesting, because this is an issue that will certainly not die anytime soon.

The preconception or bias I have been speaking of is the lack of quickness or general athleticism of the white American player.  As I mentioned, virtually everyone in the basketball world agrees that this preconception exists.  It is a running joke in the basketball community.  The issue is whether or not it is true.  Today, I want to assume it is a bit true.  Not only that, I want to point out that there are also plenty of black American basketball players that are more skilled than athletic.  They are the exceptions to the stereotype and they also, by being a step slow on defense or not as athletic as other guys, have barriers to climb.  They just don’t have to overcome the white- guy preconception.

The question I want to ask in light of these things is one that the OTL piece didn’t address.  It is this:

Is it possible that athleticism is sometimes an overvalued trait in the NBA?  I believe the answer to be, ‘Yes.’

Every person interviewed spoke about the lack of athleticism of the white American player, but no one said (at least not shown) that maybe, just maybe, it is possible to have too many athletes on the floor and too little highly skilled basketball players (white or black).

Interestingly enough, one of the men interviewed, Mark Price, (who is, incidentally, one of my all-time favorite players and a player I looked up to as a kid), was not the most athletically gifted individual.  Though he had an outstanding college career, he was drafted second round and was not guaranteed a great opportunity of NBA success.  This was because people questioned his athleticism right?  And yet, he turned out to have a great NBA career and no doubt, outplayed many a man quicker than himself.

Another white basketball player with limited athleticism that comes to mind is John Stockton.  I actually played against him when he was 40 or 41 years-old.  Yes, 40 or 41 years old in the 2001-2002 season.  So this is the modern area.  From personal experience, I can say that I did not believe he was a strong one-on-one defender.  In fact, I was very confident offensively going against him (and I am white, just to remind you).  Yet, John Stockton is one of the best defenders in the history of basketball, because he played great team defense.  He is the all-time steals leader not because he is quicker than everyone else, but because he has great hands and his positioning and feel for the game on the defensive end is second to none.

And this is not to mention John Stockton on the offensive side of the court.  He was just as successful, but again, not as quick as many of the players he was playing against (especially at 40 or 41 years-old).  But because he knew the game so well and fit into an offensive system that was perfect for his gifts, he made younger and quicker players look stupid.  I know, because I was one on a few occasions (thought that doesn’t prove much, I suppose, b/c I am one of the slow white guys!).  His footwork and change of pace were so good that he easily had success against quicker, more athletic, and younger players.  In fact, he often used their athleticism against them!

The point is that there have been numerous players that were not the most athletic of the bunch (and that might not ‘make the cut’ in today’s NBA) that are some of the best NBA players of all-time.  And this is true, white or black (Mark Jackson comes to mind as a black player who wasn’t the most athletic, but great in his own right).

Now this really gets to the heart of the issue, in my opinion.  Whether a player is white or black is not so much the issue. Though I do think there is a bias or preconception that white guys are not athletic enough, etc. I also believe that plenty a good black basketball player is not given at opportunity to succeed in today’s NBA because not enough teams value diversity.  Not racial diversity, however, but player diversity.  A diversity that embraces differing gifts.  It’s my view that in much today’s NBA (especially on the poorer teams), there is too great an emphasis on one trait (athleticism) and too little appreciation for the things that made John Stockton or Mark Price or Mark Jackson great.

As I mentioned yesterday, the NBA is a copycat league.  And right now many are copying one another in pursuing the most athletic players out there.  That usually means more opportunity for black players, but it also means less opportunity for black players who aren’t the most athletic of the bunch, but who could be more effective, because of their basketball savvy and skills.

I could be wrong, but I personally don’t think this is good for the NBA game.  And I think that a good look at the best teams in the league support this notion.  For, white or black, European or American, they are filled with a diverse group of players who work well together.  The poorer teams, not so much.

I, for one, thoroughly enjoy the NBA game (it’s rules, etc. which I know many folks don’t like).  I still believe it is the best basketball in the world and I would love to play there again.  But what I am saying here is that I believe it could still be better. With the plethora of diverse talent out there today all over the world, white and black, I think many NBA teams would improve by looking for more than just athleticism.  Sure, it would be perfect to have both in every player.  But if you can’t have that, you had better diversify.

White or black, International or American, I think the NBA game would be a lot better off if many repented of their over-emphasis upon athleticism and turned to valuing the things that made the greatest players of all-time, the greatest players of all-time.  Sure, many of the greatest were great athletes.  But if they won championships, you can bet your bottom dollar that they were surrounded by a few guys who may have been a step slow.