Re: NBA Off Topic Thread
On the topic of Blood in the Garden, that was one of my bigger literary disappointments of the past few years. I was surprised how so much of the book just felt like a general year-by-year recounting, almost like I was just reading game summaries with little depth beyond a few shock morsels sprinkled on top (i.e. the Xavier McDaniel situation early on). For instance, I'm pretty sure the LJ four-point play got, like, one or two sentences and that was about it.
I kind of wonder if that book would have been better off with a narrower scope (say, the Riley era only), which would have allowed for more concentrated depth rather than, "And then this happened. And this. And here's another section on Anthony Mason. And then this."
On the topic of 90's basketball, I think there's a lot of misconceptions that stem from the entire decade of hoops being known simply as "90's basketball". If someone who missed that era happened to go back and watch the '98 Finals, they're more likely to be aghast. But going back to watch a Knicks-Bulls game in '92, or Pistons-Blazers in '90, or Sonics-Rockets in '94 would all offer much different experiences while still falling under the 90's umbrella.
I also think people sometimes underestimate how big of a role knowing and investing in a particular team and its players can have on one's enjoyment of any style of game. It's a big part of the reason why I could watch the Pistons and Pacers combine for 20 blocks and still spend that entire game riveted and on the edge of my seat. And it's the same reason I can watch my former players eek out an ugly junior varsity win against their rival on a snowy Tuesday night and come away feeling like I really experienced something worthwhile.
On the topic of Blood in the Garden, that was one of my bigger literary disappointments of the past few years. I was surprised how so much of the book just felt like a general year-by-year recounting, almost like I was just reading game summaries with little depth beyond a few shock morsels sprinkled on top (i.e. the Xavier McDaniel situation early on). For instance, I'm pretty sure the LJ four-point play got, like, one or two sentences and that was about it.
I kind of wonder if that book would have been better off with a narrower scope (say, the Riley era only), which would have allowed for more concentrated depth rather than, "And then this happened. And this. And here's another section on Anthony Mason. And then this."
On the topic of 90's basketball, I think there's a lot of misconceptions that stem from the entire decade of hoops being known simply as "90's basketball". If someone who missed that era happened to go back and watch the '98 Finals, they're more likely to be aghast. But going back to watch a Knicks-Bulls game in '92, or Pistons-Blazers in '90, or Sonics-Rockets in '94 would all offer much different experiences while still falling under the 90's umbrella.
I also think people sometimes underestimate how big of a role knowing and investing in a particular team and its players can have on one's enjoyment of any style of game. It's a big part of the reason why I could watch the Pistons and Pacers combine for 20 blocks and still spend that entire game riveted and on the edge of my seat. And it's the same reason I can watch my former players eek out an ugly junior varsity win against their rival on a snowy Tuesday night and come away feeling like I really experienced something worthwhile.
Comment