Basketball and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Paint

Basketball Purists

BASKETBALL PURISTS R. Scott Kretchmar BASKETBALL PURISTS HAVE had something to crow about recently, and they haven’t been quiet. When the U.S. basketball team embarrassed itself at the Greek Olympic Games in 2004, purists jumped at the opportunity to point out our lack of good passing, shooting, and teamwork . And when Detroit and San Antonio ended up in the 2005 NBA finals, sports columnists noted that this would be a series for basketball purists. With the likes of Tim Duncan and Richard Hamilton leading their respective squads, fundamentals would be featured over raw athleticism , good shooting over brute force, hitting the open player over taking forced shots or going one-on-one, strong defense over a run-andgun offense, and perhaps most important, selfless teamwork over chestthumping individuality. The recent defeat of the talent-laden U.S. men’s basketball team in the 2006 FIBA semifinals at the hands of the Greeks has only added fuel to the purist-stoked fire. Purists would agree with one AP report noting that the U.S. had dazzling skills, but the Greeks had a dazzling team. Basketball purists, however, also have their critics. Some regard the patient team-oriented, passing, and back-door-cutting kind of offense, often associated with the Pete Carril–coached Princeton teams, as utterly boring. This view would seem to be supported by influential sports entertainment programs such as SportsCenter. They are far more likely to feature thunder dunks and in-your-face showmanship than they are a well-set screen, movement away from the ball, or sound defensive footwork. In addition, Streetball, City Slam, and other basketball-related ventures that Blind Sentimentalists or Insightful Critics? 32 R. Scott Kretchmar feature spectacular individual capabilities coupled with “attitude” are now multimillion-dollar businesses that have attracted the attention of such mainstream sports media as ESPN. All this would tend to suggest that the basketball purist is something of a sports dinosaur. Unable to accept the fact that the game has changed, the purist stubbornly and mindlessly holds on to some overly sentimental version of basketball’s “good old days.” Who’s right? Which brand of basketball is better? Is this the kind of debate on which philosophers should weigh in? Can their insights shed any light on this issue? Or are the skeptics and relativists right when they say that this is simply a matter of opinion, much like the battle between those who prefer vanilla ice cream over Ben and Jerry’s coffee-coffeebuzz -buzz-buzz? My sense is that there is something here into which philosophers can sink their teeth. The “purist debate,” after all, is not all that different from traditional philosophic arguments over the nature of the good life. Some have argued, for example, that the good life is built on a foundation of enlightened self-interest. Others suggest that prudential living doesn’t go far enough and that alternate principles like humility, love, justice, and altruism provide keys to a better existence. While most contemporary philosophers don’t believe that any “slam-dunk” arguments can be given for either view, most are convinced that persuasive arguments can be offered even if they are not absolutely conclusive. I agree with this contemporary view and believe that persuasive philosophical arguments can be marshaled in the purist-modernist debate in basketball. In what follows, I try to build a case for what I call a “modified purist account.” I call it a modified position because I fully agree with the modernists that basketball is an evolving phenomenon. Like all cultural activities, basketball changes, and many of these changes have improved the game. It would be foolish to go back to the “good old days” of basketball when equipment, skills, strategy, courts, and training techniques were, at least by contemporary standards, primitive . Nevertheless, I shall argue, purists are correct in thinking that many modernist changes in basketball have been unfortunate and should be resisted. 33 Basketball Purists A False Test: Which Version Works Better? Some might argue that the debate over different versions of basketball can be resolved by examining which style works best—on the court, in face-to-face competition. If teams that play modern versions of basketball typically beat comparably skilled squads that use a purist style of play, then the former brand of basketball wins. Case settled! Likewise, if the purists who criticized our less-than...