How can I learn more about basketball? I don't mean how to play it: I do not have the ability or inclination or time to play. I mean that I want to be a more educated fan. The fact that I don't play may mean that I will never have a deep understanding, but I think I can understand it better than I do.
I realize that there is an inherent problem with NBA broadcasts. I'm an academic, and I recognize that I can speak differently to my students at the end of the term: use more sophisticated language, refer to concepts from earlier, etc. Sports broadcasters can't do this: they have to aim, or at least they believe that have to aim, their broadcasts at viewers who may be watching their first games. I understand that, but it also makes me wish that there were alternate broadcast teams with more sophisticated descriptions.
Let me give a few examples: on the positive side, there was a play in a recent Boston game where Tatum (I think) had the ball and White made a cut from the top of the arc toward the basket. This opened up a lot of space for someone else at the top of the arc, and Tatum passed to him for an open shot. I did not catch this in real time, but Scalabrine pointed it out, and then I could rewind and watch. This was very educational, but it's the exception to what happens in most broadcasts. In contrast, I feel like I get dumber every time I hear a game with Mark Jackson on the broadcasting team.
I think the Athletic is a good resource, but I feel like I have some fundamental holes in my understanding that they aren't going to address. For instance, I heard Zack Lowe and a guest on his podcast talking about Rudy Gobert, how he is just not a good player on offense. Why not? Is there something intrinsic about his body type or his vision or something else (?) that means he can never be a good player on offense, or does he just not put in the required work to develop post moves?
I realize that there is an inherent problem with NBA broadcasts. I'm an academic, and I recognize that I can speak differently to my students at the end of the term: use more sophisticated language, refer to concepts from earlier, etc. Sports broadcasters can't do this: they have to aim, or at least they believe that have to aim, their broadcasts at viewers who may be watching their first games. I understand that, but it also makes me wish that there were alternate broadcast teams with more sophisticated descriptions.
Let me give a few examples: on the positive side, there was a play in a recent Boston game where Tatum (I think) had the ball and White made a cut from the top of the arc toward the basket. This opened up a lot of space for someone else at the top of the arc, and Tatum passed to him for an open shot. I did not catch this in real time, but Scalabrine pointed it out, and then I could rewind and watch. This was very educational, but it's the exception to what happens in most broadcasts. In contrast, I feel like I get dumber every time I hear a game with Mark Jackson on the broadcasting team.
I think the Athletic is a good resource, but I feel like I have some fundamental holes in my understanding that they aren't going to address. For instance, I heard Zack Lowe and a guest on his podcast talking about Rudy Gobert, how he is just not a good player on offense. Why not? Is there something intrinsic about his body type or his vision or something else (?) that means he can never be a good player on offense, or does he just not put in the required work to develop post moves?