Passion and effort makes college sports compelling. The drama created by the players’ love of the sport draws us to watch and cheer. But it can’t carry college basketball past the NBA.
College basketball is vastly inferior game compared to the NBA game. Players are smaller, slower, and far less skilled. This makes college basketball a bag of Skittles. The individual effort and passion are there, but there’s not enough skill and the talent for it to be more than the sum of it’s parts like Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream.
For example, the Lakers play one of the most beautiful offenses ever, and no college team can match the ball and player movement of their triangle offense. The Hornets run the Princeton offence with precision and control no college team can match. Even the rag-tag Warriors (who’s offensive strategy is to just chuck it) can out-run, out-gun, and out-create the best college teams. The lowly Warriors, or even the Clippers would easily rack up 140 points on best college teams.
And the Warriors and the Clippers would actually be able to stop college teams from scoring. College players play defense with a lot more passion and effort than the pros do, but they are not as effective. As John Wooden said “don’t mistake activity for progress.” And it shows in rookie mistakes, like when they miss a rotation or fail to help. Many of them are not even decent pick and roll defenders, and they should have been taught to say not over-commit when putting pressure on the ball but many rookie big men do.
NBA basketball is simply more effective on both offense and defense. Now I would argue that this is true in football too, but the effectiveness of the NFL game works against it. In football, the proportion of (observable) unplanned event is much smaller than basketball. Effectiveness of the NFL lowers that proportion to the point where it becomes too predictable and not as much fun. That’s why college football is better than the NFL. But the proportion of unplanned event is much greater in basketball in general. The effectiveness of the NBA game limits it enough to highlight those moments of creativity.
Players like LeBron, Steve Nash, D-Wade, and Chris Paul would be far less entertaining to watch in college game. They won’t be able to play at the highest level because the players around them are not as good. They won’t be able to showcase their talents because the offenses and defenses are simpler. They won’t even be allowed to create as much because college coaches tend to over coach. And we would have to watch fewer possessions because the shot clock is 10 seconds too long. Passion and effort is good, but not good enough to overcome inferior product, especially that idle 10 seconds at the beginning of every possession.
Monday, April 13, 2009
i'll meet the ones between us and be thinking about you. thoughts inspired by a cocktail of xanax, wine and weed. i know this joke through a woody allen film: sex is always between 6. the couplers (2), their parents (4)= 6. but the joke comments intelligibly on what I like to call "the everyday coitus." what's between you and a conjugal I........ is a series of Others. Others? For example: your father, the lessons he may have ingrained in your psyche. These lessons (superegoic commands) fill you with turmoil. Your mother, the ego ideal you keep for every partner you'll ever have had.
Fuck, I'm almost out of my wine. Thankfully we keep a cupboard of sedatives. Sometines I don't hear.
Fuck, I'm almost out of my wine. Thankfully we keep a cupboard of sedatives. Sometines I don't hear.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Isolated rat cells can fly planes, so you have no free will
In the last few years, someone decided to see if isolated rat brain cells placed in a dish could control a flight simulator. Not to keep you in suspense, they can.
At first, the cells did not what the hell they were doing, but over time, they learned. (That's what brain cells do.)
Basically, the cells are grown are grown on dish of electrodes and form sort of a bio-circuit board. Whenever the virtual plane is flying strait, the neurons receive a positive electrical signal, which strengthens which ever neural connections are active at that time. Pretty soon, the neural pathways that fly the plane correctly are the strongest, and the isolated neurons are blazing around like Goose and Maverick giving "the bird" to a MIG. This is the same that we learn to walk or hit a golf ball.
Now if isolated neurons can fly planes, can they form some kind of natural, artificial, semi-conscious, conscious, human-like, bio-bot? I'm glad you asked.
This robot learns the same way that the flight simulator neurons learned. In other words, it gets better at being a robot over time without any future programming. Neural cells are built to do just that. It's a large part of how we learn - neurons that do the job correctly become stronger.
So why don't you have any free will anymore? Well, you are basically one of the these robots, except your brain cells last a lot longer and you occasionally have to go to the bathroom. That's it. Maybe. Perhaps all you do is respond to stimuli and strengthen neural connections over time.
Not enough proof that you have no free will? Well, how about this: Recent studies have shown that, when making a decision, electrical signals for that decision can be observed in your brain...wait for it...10 seconds before you make your decision. In other words, contrary to our assumed relationship with our brain, which is that we tell it what to do, it now appears that it tells us what to do.
Let's think about how this works. You are at the store pondering whether to add crunch berries™ to this week's stockpile of your favorite breakfast treat, Cap't Crunch (which are supposed to look like a bunch of treasure chests, by the way). Your impatient wife asks you what you're going to get. You reply "I have no idea", because you don't. Ten seconds later, Bam! you triumphantly throw the crunch berry™-less cereal into your cart. Beaming, you walk off to ready to take on the ever present "idodized vs non-iodized salt" Goliath.
Had you been able to see your brain's activity more clearly, you would have known that you were about to choose that the plain cereal when your wife asked. In fact, your brain has probably already decided on idodized salt. In essence, the decision was already made before you knew about it. All you did was eventually carry it out by grabbing the cereal box, like some kind of monkey butler.
On the other hand, maybe your brain is just good at reading minds. Like your own. Wait, that doesn't make any more sense at all.
At first, the cells did not what the hell they were doing, but over time, they learned. (That's what brain cells do.)
Basically, the cells are grown are grown on dish of electrodes and form sort of a bio-circuit board. Whenever the virtual plane is flying strait, the neurons receive a positive electrical signal, which strengthens which ever neural connections are active at that time. Pretty soon, the neural pathways that fly the plane correctly are the strongest, and the isolated neurons are blazing around like Goose and Maverick giving "the bird" to a MIG. This is the same that we learn to walk or hit a golf ball.
Now if isolated neurons can fly planes, can they form some kind of natural, artificial, semi-conscious, conscious, human-like, bio-bot? I'm glad you asked.
This robot learns the same way that the flight simulator neurons learned. In other words, it gets better at being a robot over time without any future programming. Neural cells are built to do just that. It's a large part of how we learn - neurons that do the job correctly become stronger.
So why don't you have any free will anymore? Well, you are basically one of the these robots, except your brain cells last a lot longer and you occasionally have to go to the bathroom. That's it. Maybe. Perhaps all you do is respond to stimuli and strengthen neural connections over time.
Not enough proof that you have no free will? Well, how about this: Recent studies have shown that, when making a decision, electrical signals for that decision can be observed in your brain...wait for it...10 seconds before you make your decision. In other words, contrary to our assumed relationship with our brain, which is that we tell it what to do, it now appears that it tells us what to do.
Let's think about how this works. You are at the store pondering whether to add crunch berries™ to this week's stockpile of your favorite breakfast treat, Cap't Crunch (which are supposed to look like a bunch of treasure chests, by the way). Your impatient wife asks you what you're going to get. You reply "I have no idea", because you don't. Ten seconds later, Bam! you triumphantly throw the crunch berry™-less cereal into your cart. Beaming, you walk off to ready to take on the ever present "idodized vs non-iodized salt" Goliath.
Had you been able to see your brain's activity more clearly, you would have known that you were about to choose that the plain cereal when your wife asked. In fact, your brain has probably already decided on idodized salt. In essence, the decision was already made before you knew about it. All you did was eventually carry it out by grabbing the cereal box, like some kind of monkey butler.
On the other hand, maybe your brain is just good at reading minds. Like your own. Wait, that doesn't make any more sense at all.
Monday, March 30, 2009
“I couldn’t because ...”
People tell me that line all the time, and I always wondered why. Let’s say you planned a party and invited your friends. One of the friends who didn’t show up told you the next day, “I couldn’t make it to your party because I had to prepare for a class and then work on my project.” Let’s say again that instead he said, “I couldn’t make it. Did I miss a fun party?” Which answer do you prefer and why?
I prefer the later. It would make me feel that he wanted to come but he couldn’t. But the first answer would make me think he had better things to do than come to my party, and he is giving me excuses so I would keep inviting him in he future. Granted the reason someone misses anything (when they have a choice) is because they had something better to do. But actually saying them will only draw emphasis to that fact, and not to the feeling of wanting to come to the party. I would much rather hear that he wanted to come instead of the reasons why he didn’t. I think it’s more positive and affirming. But then I do sound a little like a curmudgeon whining about nothing.
I prefer the later. It would make me feel that he wanted to come but he couldn’t. But the first answer would make me think he had better things to do than come to my party, and he is giving me excuses so I would keep inviting him in he future. Granted the reason someone misses anything (when they have a choice) is because they had something better to do. But actually saying them will only draw emphasis to that fact, and not to the feeling of wanting to come to the party. I would much rather hear that he wanted to come instead of the reasons why he didn’t. I think it’s more positive and affirming. But then I do sound a little like a curmudgeon whining about nothing.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Stress and short sightedness
I know quite a few people who are stressed all the time. One of them went to a stress management class and heard that there are three types of people when it comes to stress: the turtle, the hare, and the thoroughbred. The turtle can only do one thing at a time at his own pace. The hare jumps from task to task, completing some but distracted away from others, and so becomes stressed. The thoroughbred completes a task at a time while avoiding getting distracted by other tasks and thus doesn’t get too stressed. So the hare exemplify my friends who are stressed all the time.
I think I belong to the thoroughbred category. I can even do more than one things at a time and not get stressed. Sometimes I even enjoy the pressure of the deadline. But this isn’t because I’m some kind of a super animal like the thoroughbred. This is because I’m short sighted.
One of the stressed ones puts pressure on her self. Like the others, it is a self-imposed stress, and she does so because she wants to get to where she wants to go in life. She has a rough idea of the path she wants take and what she needs to do get there. That’s why she gets stressed. The stakes can’t be any bigger! I on the other hand spend very little time thinking about what I want to do in the future. I think a lot about how I want to feel and what kind of person I want to be, but not about a career path. When it comes to a career, I’m short sighted. I simply don’t think about it that far into the future.
This is not a virtue but a flaw. Though thoroughbred best describes how I handle stress, there should be a different category to describe someone like me: the donkey. It handles the stress just like a thoroughbred but it sure won’t get to the goal any faster. It might not even know there is a goal.
Now, can the donkey become the thoroughbred any easier than the hare? I doubt it. The later transition requires refinement only in method, whereas the former requires a change of philosophy. But then the donkey isn’t too bad of a position to be. I heard they are very dreamy and romantic animals.
I think I belong to the thoroughbred category. I can even do more than one things at a time and not get stressed. Sometimes I even enjoy the pressure of the deadline. But this isn’t because I’m some kind of a super animal like the thoroughbred. This is because I’m short sighted.
One of the stressed ones puts pressure on her self. Like the others, it is a self-imposed stress, and she does so because she wants to get to where she wants to go in life. She has a rough idea of the path she wants take and what she needs to do get there. That’s why she gets stressed. The stakes can’t be any bigger! I on the other hand spend very little time thinking about what I want to do in the future. I think a lot about how I want to feel and what kind of person I want to be, but not about a career path. When it comes to a career, I’m short sighted. I simply don’t think about it that far into the future.
This is not a virtue but a flaw. Though thoroughbred best describes how I handle stress, there should be a different category to describe someone like me: the donkey. It handles the stress just like a thoroughbred but it sure won’t get to the goal any faster. It might not even know there is a goal.
Now, can the donkey become the thoroughbred any easier than the hare? I doubt it. The later transition requires refinement only in method, whereas the former requires a change of philosophy. But then the donkey isn’t too bad of a position to be. I heard they are very dreamy and romantic animals.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Need not Save the Earth
The good people who care about the environment, animals, and nature in general tend to speak of Earth in emotional and anthropomorphic way, I think, to the detriment of their cause. “Save the Earth”, or “fragile Earth” are common phrases I hear, and I think people use them to elicit protective feeling in the audience. Not only does this strategy fail to capture the true sate of Earth as a complex system, it distracts from the true victims of the changing environment: people.
I am not denying that the environment is changing. It is in fact changing at unprecedented speed, and we are causing it. But the change we are causing is a minor one for Earth as a whole. What’s living on it today might not in the future, but something else will surely thrive on it. Once it gets going, life is very very hard to extinguish. Even if 99.9% of all life dies, given time the remaining 0.1% will re-colonize Earth. Each individual or each species may be fragile, but Earth and life as a whole is not.
Nor does Earth need saving. “Saving” requires a trajectory toward “bad”. In order for Earth to be saved, it has to be moving towards something bad. But there is no value in changing Earth. Let’s say the Earth is changing the way it is now but there are no humans on it. Will it be bad? Will the Earth need saving then? It’s really not the Earth that heads toward something bad, it is the human beings. It is not the Earth who needs saving, it is we.
I am not denying that the environment is changing. It is in fact changing at unprecedented speed, and we are causing it. But the change we are causing is a minor one for Earth as a whole. What’s living on it today might not in the future, but something else will surely thrive on it. Once it gets going, life is very very hard to extinguish. Even if 99.9% of all life dies, given time the remaining 0.1% will re-colonize Earth. Each individual or each species may be fragile, but Earth and life as a whole is not.
Nor does Earth need saving. “Saving” requires a trajectory toward “bad”. In order for Earth to be saved, it has to be moving towards something bad. But there is no value in changing Earth. Let’s say the Earth is changing the way it is now but there are no humans on it. Will it be bad? Will the Earth need saving then? It’s really not the Earth that heads toward something bad, it is the human beings. It is not the Earth who needs saving, it is we.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Team I Coach
I'm coaching a kids basketball team. We are actually pretty good. One of kids is probably the best player in the league's age group. He has a lot to do with why we play well, but we also hustle and play tough. I just love to describe the way we play as "like a pack of wolves". And I like to think I had something to do with it, but most of it is the make-up of the team. We have few kids who play the game like it's football, and the rest just gets caught up in it. The kids love to play and play hard, so I really have an easy job. Only if I can get them to block-out on consistently...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)