We Can Plant a House, We Can Build a Tree
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 9:46 AM PDT
168 comments
When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.
This is a quote that gets repeated ad infinitum, in spite of the fact that it was almost definitively never spoken by anyone of any import (unless you count Hans Gruber, which, of course, I do). The quote is, then, a popular creation—a platitude that gains prevalence not because it is accurate but on the basis of the fact that it is likeable, that it expresses something that appeals to a large swath of the public.
This is especially important because of the content of the actual quote, provided by Plutarch:
Alexander cried when he heard Anaxarchus talk about the infinite number of worlds in the universe. One of Alexander's friends asked him what was the matter, and he replied: "There are so many worlds, and I have not yet conquered even one."
So the switch, maintained by the popular memory, is an important one: does Alexander weep because he has nothing left to conquer, or because he is so eager to conquer and cannot?
For those who have had the patience to get this far, the question is crucial to the current makeup of the Portland Trailblazers. Everyone on this particular blog, and those in the rest of the sportswriting industry, take the future of the Blazers as though the ultimate aim is a priori a championship. The context of the trade deadline was especially interesting to me, as people argued feverishly over what the definitive "championship piece" would be. An all-star SF? A "true" PG? A defensive specialist? And although this problem could never be resolved, that didn’t stop people from arguing over the arbitrary permutations of possibilities at each of these positions (quick note: I love this kind of arguing, even in it’s arbitrariness, so it’s definitely not the spirit of the argument I’m attacking). Perhaps rather than follow the rote routine of this ancient argument we would be better served attacking the very conditions of the argument: namely, that the championship is the thing. What if we started asking the question: which groups of players will produce the most beautiful ball?
Before I get Herm Edwards reminding me, politely, that you play to win the game, hello, I want to point out that the most treasured memory for most Blazers fans (my age anyway) are the teams of the early 90’s. Those teams provided Portland with some of the most entertaining and impressive basketball I’ve seen in my life, and although the period is referred to from time to time as "bittersweet," it’s really only the "sweet" half that I experience when I think back on those teams.
Or, okay, here’s a test for those who are still skeptical: who would you rather root for: the 2003-04 Pistons or the 2005-06 Suns? 95-96 Sonics or 98-99 Spurs? 61-62 Philadelphia Warriors or 61-62 Celtics? Yeah, I went there—those Celtic teams were mostly boring.
In the case that there are those who still think I’m crazy, who think that beautiful basketball that loses in the end is still just losing basketball, take a long look backwards at that Halberstam masterpiece The Breaks of the Game. That Blazers team, in spite of their remarkable talent, had nowhere to go in 78. The sense of aimlessness is palpable in that book—it’s crazy how quickly a team that seemed unbeatably singular manages to crumble into competing individual desires. As much as I’m looking forward to LMA pouting about his contract’s inadequacy, I’d rather just watch him throw down put-back dunks.
All I’m suggesting is that there’s a reason the first version of the Alexander quote is more popular: it’s the truer iteration. Whether or not it’s true is of secondary import.
27 recs |
168 comments
Email
Print
Comments
We obviously need more posts like this on the blog.
That will get us over the hump, not a PG or SF.
Whatever you’re smoking, I want some.
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx
by RDreamer on Mar 17, 2009 10:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
pull up a chair
try on this jacket – cool. Fits nice. Make yourself at home. – Elgin
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 17, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2003-04 Pistons by a mile.
I did root for them. They beat the Lakers in the finals for crying out loud. Perhaps my favorite roster in the past eight years.
Chauncy Billups- mildly awesome.
Rip Hamilton- slightly below awesome.
Rasheed Wallace- out of his freaking mind awesome.
Tayshaun Prince- perfect.
Ben Wallace- he was glorious back then.
by Nick Van Excellent on Mar 17, 2009 10:00 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I too, fondly remember the confounded LA fans who yelled at Kobe to shoot, even though he didn’t have an inch of space with which to hoist a shot. That finals was the best of my adult life, mostly because of the way LA got embarrassed. I got to root against Kobe and Shaq AND the Mailman AND the Glove: there was so much to hate.
But my question remains: watch that Pistons team for a whole season or the 05-06 Suns? If you still pick Pistons then we disagree.
"It is impossible for a man of any intellect to write an honest line." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hmmm...
You might have me there.
by Nick Van Excellent on Mar 17, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This town will only watch fun baskeball for so long
I know this because in 1993 being a fun team to watch wasn’t enough and Clyde, Terry, and Duck were soon all out the door.
It’s time to win.
There won't be clean officiating in the NBA until David Stern is forcibly removed by the US Congress in 2013 for fixing games.
by 123_G.O._RipCity on Mar 17, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you got a point there.
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 18, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That team was obviously all Sheed
Salaries
Wallace: 16.99 million
Billups + Hamilton + Ben + Prince: 17.29 million
by Zaig on Mar 17, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I enjoyed
Watching Iverson almost dismantle the Lakers in game 7. If only he had some help :(
by Air Norv on Mar 17, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And a few more wins
Because they lost the series in game 5.
It was a bad series.
Unless you meant something else aside from the 2001 Finals.
Morty
by Mortimer on Mar 17, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
rec'd and rec'd
i’ve had this debate many times, always arguing on the side of beautiful basketball (which I think is a wonderful term). It’s a mindset of loving the game more than the system it resides in. The NBA is flawed but basketball is perfect (when you play it right!).
"Travis has more hops than a bunny in a brewery. He elevates so high his seat doubles as a flotation device."
-Dave
by SabonisBonus on Mar 17, 2009 10:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This has to be revisted
Shaq: 13-16
Shaq 10-20
Shaq 7-14
Shaq 16-21
Shaq 7-13
How does a team lose 4-1 when their starting Center has numbers like this? Easy, let your starting SG have numbers like these.
Kobe 10-27
Kobe 14-27
Kobe 4-13
Kobe 8-25
Kobe 7-21
For those not mathematically inclined. Four of those five games have shooting percentages BELOW 40. Granted, they won the 1 game where Kobe shot well, but gee, you think maybe the guy who shoots 50+ every game should shoot more?
History is fun!
by Zaig on Mar 17, 2009 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you go back and watch the games, Detroit was giving the Lakers Shaq whenever they wanted him. I believe the bulk of the Shaq-guarding duty went to Elvin Campbell and Memhet Okur, to give you an idea of the seriousness with which they regarded Shaq. In other words, his shooting percentage doesn’t surprise me at all. Their whole goal was to frustrate Kobe into bad decisions and it worked to perfection. He tossed up some of the ugliest shots I have ever seen in that series.
Of course, immediately after that series the league revised the rules so hand-checking became illegal, which is the stupidest shmuss I’ve ever heard in all my goshdurn life. The MJ-Kobe comparison ends here. The league never changed the rules because MJ cried about them.
"It is impossible for a man of any intellect to write an honest line." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Funny thing.
K*be didn’t cry about them, Mark Cuban did.
Can’t find the post on Truehoop, but it was within the past few months where Cuban was disgusted with the holding on the perimeter and his army helped make an argument that the league accepted. They changed the rules, and then Steve Nash became invincible in in SSOL and won a few MVPs.
But don’t get me wrong, what K*be did in the finals was unacceptable from a shooting guard when you have Shaq in the post against Ben, Rasheed, Mehmet, etc.
-Tyler
Oden and LaMarcus and Roy, oh my!
by Quik_Baller on Mar 17, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kobe’s crying may not have changed the rules, as my previous comment indicated, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t crying—both during that series and after it.
Thank you for clarifying about whose crying actually made the most noise to the league. If you can find that link will you shoot it my way?
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here you go
Truehoop’s quick blurb about it:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-133/Thursday-Bullets.html
Which links to Cuban’s blog about it and clear path fouls:
http://blogmaverick.com/2009/02/04/if-its-not-broke-doesnt-mean-its-optimal-even-in-the-nba/
Oden and LaMarcus and Roy, oh my!
by Quik_Baller on Mar 17, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm struggling more with the second version of the Alexander quote
At my age, Qin Shi Huang and Alexander at least had already an empire.
by Norsktroll on Mar 17, 2009 10:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Counter to what most people believe, Alexander ruled the western world with an eye towards the east. He was always aware of vast amounts of land that he was unable to conquer or control. The implication would be, his focus had been so feverishly placed on the terrestrial, that learning of extra-terrestrial worlds made his goal seem all the more insignificant, and therefore his shame all the greater that he could not achieve it.
"It is impossible for a man of any intellect to write an honest line." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll give you your first rec...
on this post anyway (I swear it was… it’s taking me forever to finish this comment. Stupid work!)
My two cents: I love the journey. I love the history. I love the excitement, love the unknown, love the anxiety, love the we destroyed them’s, and love being able to speak at great length about the memories of heartbreak.
But I want a championship.
That’s the ultimate payoff for my emotional investment. Basking in the glory of victory, joining in on the parade that will surely weave it’s way through downtown, high fiving smiling strangers. Even if it only lasts for a few months before another season starts and a new champion is sought, it will be worth all the years I’ve willed this team.
If it takes the ugly basketball to get it, that is fine with me, so long as the winning team has on a Blazers Uni.
That said, I don’t find our style ugly. It’s not the most attractive game out there, but we do operate with astounding precision and efficiency.
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 17, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I severely edited this fanpost before I posted it
But I originally had a whole paragraph about the allure of the parade—you have illustrated my point firmly. I was trying to keep my sexual analogues subtle (hence the titular reference to "Breed") and the parade paragraph made it too obvious. Also, I didn’t want to get another reminder from Dave to keep things less provocative.
So, here’s a SFW recap of my thoughts about the parade: You buy a nutty-buddy, right? And you’re looking forward to the chocolate-coated tip of the cone the whole time. You are working up a sweat just getting after this nutty-buddy, I mean, you are really dipping into it. You got your teeth, your tongue, all going to town on this confection, my friend. And then it’s there—that delicious tip of solid chocolate—and it is glorious. But then you take a breath, smoke a cigarette, and realize, hey, my nutty-buddy is gone. Now what?
The tip is the parade. People focus on it so much they are willing to forego the rest of the cone, the process (which is really the enjoyable part) of rendering that chocolate tip raw.
My question is, what kind of discursive possibilities are opened up by crossing out the tip/parade? Do we really want “ugly basketball” just so we can awkwardly high-five one another on Broadway? (And trust me, we DO look awkward)
"It is impossible for a man of any intellect to write an honest line." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In staying true to your desert analogy...
why can’t you savor each bite, enjoy it bit after bit, all while looking forward to your favorite part? Doesn’t that last bite almost have more value because you patiently made your way to it? If you eat several nutty-buddy’s a day, tip and all, it would lose meaning, lose value.
From a fundamental economics standpoint, supply and demand determines value. So let’s say you only get one nutty-buddy a year. Every year as you work your way towards the tip, something happens (one year your dog snipes it out of your hands, the next year your older brother punks you and takes it, the next year you flat drop it). Suddenly the value of that tip, the glorious tip that you’ve heard soooo much about, is at an all time high. If the nutty-buddy gods deem you worthy, one of these years you may yet get that tip.
For me, the tip/parade is just another part of the journey. It’s the end of a chapter in the middle of the book. Life goes on. Time won’t cease (even if it might feel like it does temporarily). It ends up as another memory, another story that can be told. Long time Blazer fans hold the memory of this city’s single victory parade in high esteem… to the point that it’s become legendary. As much as I enjoy the rest of the nutty-buddy, I desire to eat the tip.
In a very quick-to-the-heart-of-the-matter sort of way, would you say it boils down to this for you: is the NBA a competitive sport or is it entertainment?
For me it’s a competitive sport that I’m entertained by. It has rules by which to follow. It wouldn’t be organized without them. These rules, as governed by the league, dictate that the game is played until there’s a winner. I get entertained by the product on the hardwood and by the ability of the athletes… and I root for my team to win.
Bringing this full circle to our current team, I find them fun to watch. They’ve maintained superior execution despite playing several rookies regularly in the rotation and losing significant players to injury. I don’t want to skip over “X” time (however long it takes them, if ever) to win a championship, but I absolutely do want to see them win one.
Mind you I don’t WANT ugly basketball just for the sake of winning a championship, but if we played it and won a championship, so be it.
My question in rebuttal is, what do we gain by not desiring to celebrate a championship?
Also, Is there a word that looks more awkward than awkward? Is there a word that fits its meaning more precisely than awkward?
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 17, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
desert = dessert
stoopid! I proofed the body 6 times. Didn’t look at the header once.
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 17, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too late, I'm expecting you to tie this to the Big Cactus
If you can't laugh at yourself, everyone else probably is already.
by cafe_civet on Mar 17, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And in response to your last question...Yes: bed
If you can't laugh at yourself, everyone else probably is already.
by cafe_civet on Mar 17, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, let’s get down to brass tacks, and if you don’t mind, I’m going to abandon the dessert metaphor.
What is the purpose of desire? Is it to satisfy the need that it desires to fill? In this case we have to agree with Freud’s death drive, and not even Freud agreed with that. Alternately, is it the desire to prolong it’s own desire? And in the second case, wouldn’t it most befit desire if it were to conceal the fact that it’s own desire renders completely meaningless the obscure objects that it selects by its very being? If this is the case, wouldn’t the only experience of achieving the arbitrary object of desire be the usurpation of that object by the next in a sequence of objects? This entire schema maintains that desire is its own propulsion, that there is no economy of energy in desire.
You raise questions of entertainment value vs. competitive value, which are true to your economics model, but the problem with all economics is that they are concerned ultimately with value which must be dialectically opposed to…what? No value? How do you define “value” without resorting to metaphorical constructs? Value can never be defined because it has nothing with which to prop itself up. In the terms of Hegelian sublation, it can never earn preference because it is a vacuum. economics always fails because it never takes into account the impossibility of its terms to provide any satiation, any satisfaction—its transactions amount to the ineluctable reification of the truly meaningless chains of desired objects.
The truth of the matter is that the quest is where true enjoyment rests, and the prolongation of the quest is always at the heart of desire. When your dog grabs the tip from you in the final moment, you should hug your dog from saving you the embarrassment of finding another confection to fetishize.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's not overthink this.
When I am hungry, I eat. My hunger goes away, and I am satisfied. It is all good: the hunger, the eating, the satisfaction. Not winning a championship is like being hungry and eating but never feeling full. I would be happier eating a bowl of gruel and having a full stomach than eating a feast and still be wanting for more.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 17, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But comparing hunger to wanting a championship isn’t sustainable. Hunger is survival. If we’re talking about excess hunger, the desire for taste, then I think we can talk, but satisfaction in terms of hunger just means you’ve prolonged your life.
What about the desire for music? Can you still support your claim with that hypothetical?
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The comparison is apt,
because I’ll just die if the Blazers don’t win another title!
I don’t see how hunger being a survival mechanism ruins the comparison. Food, music, every desire creates a longing that is pleasing to fulfill. Wanting to repeat a pleasurable experience is why some folks get hooked on food, music, sex, drugs, or tominrehab.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 17, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But food only becomes an addiction when it is abstracted from the biological necessity of its desire. The mechanisms that produce sensations of hunger and fullness (those that you referred to) are not the same mechanisms that produce delirium and depression when romantic liasons are pursued. Had you said:
I would be happier tasting a bowl of gruel than being unable to taste a feast
I would have been right with you. Your use of hunger and fullness, though, raise my eyebrows, because these are terms that are abstracted to describe excess desire although they themselves refer to desires that are foundational to survival.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could argue more,
but this discussion is a stick of beef jerky and I’m more in the mood for a bowl of warm oatmeal. Where did Dragline go?
by MiledAnimal on Mar 17, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 17, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, kudos for the “I’ll die if the Blazers don’t win another title!” line. I lol’d.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will pay you 20 bucks if you write a FanPost about Basketball IQ
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure I could without swearing—are you trying to get me kicked off of the site?
Actually, sometimes I feel like you are trying to goad people into getting kicked off the site, which is part of your charm, I think.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just want to be loved
Here is what we can do. You write it, and we can send it to Jorga for editing. I think everyone would agree that she is impartial. She could replace your cuss words with crochet animals.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Jorga may still be under the impression that I am a lady, and lord knows I want to keep that lie alive. Ann knows what a creep I am. Can she be trusted to translate my filth?
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah
If you write something about Basketball IQ, it will involve Travis Outlaw. Maybe we can ask Lizzy.
On a side not, Jorga can get fired up too. I bet she’s wanted to cuss here a time or two.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha! Takes one to know one.
"Aneurysm".
When Outlaw wins a game on a last-second shot, it’s called an "annthefaneurysm". QualityPie
by annthefan on Mar 17, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you guys really flag when you say "Flag?"
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What kind of euphemism is that? This sounds like a very personal question…
Flag.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's under "actions"
I flag people all the time. I flag as “lame” or “jerkwad” or “duh.”
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ditto
I for real did it. You’re as good as gone Troll-Boy!
I always for real do it. I might be the haole who cried troll.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did it first. For reals. I'm not joking. Well. Rarely.
by Norsktroll on Mar 17, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I flagged a guy for a week once
Nothing happened.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flagged for confusion.
I mean, seriously – tominhawaii, tominrehab, Dragline… I don’t know what to believe anymore.
Jerryd Bayless has two emotions: Kill and Win.
"I want to put points on your face."
-Rudy to Pau Gasol
TRADE TRAVIS OUTLAW FOR A CHAIR
by rockingharder on Mar 17, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tom Triptych
is how I think of this multi-faceted, multi-dimensional entity … except sometimes it’s “Tom Sin” from a character in the book “Eagle Song” rather than silky Dragline.
Or, maybe, a comparison to the “Three Faces of Eve” could be apt.
by OBJuan72 on Mar 17, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 18, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You´re Sir Tom Flagstuff, the fat and vainglorious Bedger who leads the wayward Amlmart into trouble.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
by amlmart1 on Mar 18, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know how to get in trouble on your own
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
by tominhawaii on Mar 18, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True or not true I always have an excuse.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
by amlmart1 on Mar 18, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm onto you butdy
Get it, I called you a butt and a buddy all at once.
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
by tominhawaii on Mar 19, 2009 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I´m always a Fred.
But do it until you´re satisfied.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
by amlmart1 on Mar 19, 2009 1:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
flagged for going off topic
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
by tominhawaii on Mar 19, 2009 2:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I didn´t mention a house or a tree. But you didn´t either.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
by amlmart1 on Mar 19, 2009 4:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love can build a bridge
So said The Judds
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
by tominhawaii on Mar 19, 2009 6:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A bridge between the house and the tree... Interesting thought.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
by amlmart1 on Mar 19, 2009 6:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carrick-a-Rede
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
by tominhawaii on Mar 19, 2009 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"If this is the case, wouldn’t the only experience of achieving the arbitrary object of desire be the usurpation of that object by the next in a sequence of objects?"
But isn’t that a pretty good description of how most people actually live their lives?
by raoulduke on Mar 17, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You said it, but yes.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Analogy, metaphor.... sorry if I'm the nails on a chalkboard. I'm no linguist.
I like to keep things more simple than… that… whole paragraph you wrote. (Freud… that’s where we’re going with this? Really? If you’re studying to become a psychoanalyst, I’ll just cede now.)
When your dog grabs the tip from you in the final moment, you should hug your dog from saving you the embarrassment of finding another confection to fetishize.
To strive for such discipline seems godlike. I’m sure the basic principles of this comment are written in the fabric of religions the world over. I only aim to be human, and thus stick my hand in the dogs mouth to retrieve the tip.
Each team in this league has a chance once a year to be crowned champion. Why not want, hope, desire, and root for it as it’s already something we have a chance for? We’re not reinventing the wheel to make it happen… we’re already entered in this lottery!
Would you not stand on a street corner with me to celebrate if this team DOES win one?
I hope one day you can enjoy a nutty-buddy and not feel guilty for enjoying it. I also hope that once you’re cigarrette is smoked, you will find enjoyment in wanting an encore nutty-buddy.
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 17, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Freud is not just pertinent to psychoanalysts—his writings tap into perversity in all its iterations.
I would love to stand on a street corner and celebrate a Blazers title, but I will not feel that all was for naught if they never get there.
I <3 Nutty-Buddies and eat them all the time in the summer. Except for the tips—too much chocolate for my taste. I just give those things to my dog. :)
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dogs aren't supposed to eat chocolate.
I’m reporting you to PETA.
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 17, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
question of framing...
Given what you’ve written in some of your follow-up comments, it seems to me that it is in fact the second Alexander quote that is true. There are always infinite worlds to conquer, and what keeps desire moving is the awareness that there could always be more to be desired. One always end up with something that is bittersweet—even if the Blazers win a championship, someone will wake up Brandon Roy a week after the parade and tell him he is the champion of LAST year. Time to hit the court. So it is not a satisfaction with infinite possibilities that creates or sustains desire; it is the awareness of infinite possibilities that keeps desire moving forward, makes it cry just when it thought it could rest.
I only say this because your argument seems based on two premises: 1) That we are talking about one championship and not multiple championships, and 2) that beautiful ball cannot coincide with championships. So, to #1: if you change your frame of reference from one great year to dynasty, we have plenty of desire left over after one beautiful and successful year. That brings us to #2: there are plenty of examples of beautiful teams that were successful. In fact, the two greatest dynasties of the past few decades—the L*kers and the Bulls—were not just winners, they were artistic creations. I would argue that for the Blazers to become what they want to become, they need to play beautiful ball. When we win, we are not boring (for the most part). I don’t mean we don’t have ugly wins, but that they are usually the product of a few stretches of flawless execution—aesthetic beauty. To be a dynasty, we need to have more stretches like this—stretches that don’t last through the third quarter, but through a whole month. That would be a sign that we have a beautiful team that can win a championship … and then come back the next year and try to do it in even more beautiful fashion. Infinite worlds to conquer … we shouldn’t want it any other way.
by unemployedreflection on Mar 18, 2009 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
u sir, are the man
I am starting the coalition to BRING BACK IKE.
by DNP (CD) on Mar 18, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
She's a she
I'm tominhawaii, was dragline, and have never been tominrehab.
by tominhawaii on Mar 19, 2009 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah elephantine empires.
Imagine for a moment, a championship game at the RG. The home boys riding in on elephants for the pregame intro….
Or imagine surgical precision around an inside out game with LMA dropping dimes from the high post to either center at the rim. Then hitting Steve, Nic, Martell and/or Travis in the corners. Or tossing it back to brandon to create one on one because he’s bored picking the best match up elsewhere. To me that will be beautiful in a way the Detroit teams never even aspired to. And our defense will be every bit as good as theirs this time next year.
So I’ll take the elegance, style and effiency of that offense to come with a bludgeon you to death defense reminiscent of the best Bill Russell or Ben Wallace iterations.
Bedge or go home.
by Ojala John on Mar 17, 2009 10:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was pretty.
Rip Hamilton running screens, Sheed talking smack and hitting the outside shot, Tayshaun blocking at the last moment a fast break, Chauncey Taking a three deep in the shot clock. The fro on big Ben. It was pretty.
"It was White vs. Purple that's all I know." - B Roy
by pxilpooshr on Mar 17, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another question would be what distinguishes perennial championship teams from one-and-done teams
Why did the Blazers championship team quickly fall apart, and is our current team really that similar to them apart from both being very young. I think the way the current roster and organization is formed, they could very well win multiple championships over a decade somewhat like the Celtics, Lakers and Spurs did. Then again the competition is so strong these days and other pretty young teams rising too that this might not materialize and we have to take what we can get.
by Norsktroll on Mar 17, 2009 11:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The common thought is that by sublimating individual needs in deference to the needs of a group any particular team has a better shot at winning. I don’t necessarily buy this, mostly because so many people believe it without really taking the time to examine it.
But it does provide the compelling corollary that teams that repeat are those that manage to stick together, and teams that do not repeat are those that separate based on individual needs.
Then again, you can’t discount luck and effort, either.
An interesting case study for this phenomenon would be the Spurs. They maintain a high level of performance but never succeed in securing consecutive championships. I am probably one of ten or twelve people who really can’t wait for Pop to write his book.
"It is impossible for a man of any intellect to write an honest line." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having experienced the Beauty and the Reality
of seeing the Blazers win unexpectedly one year, of then developing expectations for a dynasty, and, alas, seeing the collapse of more than Walton’s foot, I like Ojala John’s thought … let’s have the art of elegance, style, and efficiency. That art, for me, doesn’t require the frame of championship.
I’ll tack the beautiful picture the Blazers are creating to the wall regardless of how far they travel, what worlds they conquer. Just watching gifted athletes playing confidently, intelligently, and passionately is enough for me. (Norsk, did you use a training technique of running with other guys where you would take turns at the front? That’s what I’d like for the Blazers, being able to flow with the frontrunners.)
by OBJuan72 on Mar 17, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In theory I go with the Suns of 2005-06!
To be able to follow an exciting team that comes close is much better than watching a boring team that wins… but if one can find excitement in what most see as boring than all the more power to them! To them the team is exciting and wins!
I was a big fan of the Flying Frenchman (no not Nic although I am a fan), the Montreal Canadians, le Bleu Blanc Rouge, les habitants (you get the point? NHL) when I was much younger. They won a lot but even when they didn’t they were so much fun to watch! Years later they became less and less talented but managed to win a few times by having a more conservative style and still having a lot of effort.
I watched a 1-0 win against Calgary in the 86 Stanley Cup Finals and swore that I loved that game as much as any because the players finished their checks and that the game was played as if every possession could cost the game. Eventually I stopped believing that or at least couldn’t stand to watch all those boring seasons games where players couldn’t break free to make those amazing end to end rushes, or even to see some beautifully developed plays. Eventually I started to wish that my team played as excitingly as some of the teams that had adopted more open styles and had the players to make it work (even if it didn’t make them win the Cup). I eventually stopped following the sport all together… I am not sure if it is because the Habs competing for the Cup year in, year out or if it is because they became boring but I think it is the latter.
I think many fans who watched the Suns a few years ago wished they could watch a team like that all season long. Some people enjoyed watching teams like Detroit and SA go all the way to a championship.
Nicely written post!
by QuebecBlzrFan on Mar 17, 2009 11:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Some people like to watch defense
I think those people are used to getting shot down by the opposite sex. It’s the only reason I can think of for studying defense.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It might be because the team that scores less points loses
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx
by RDreamer on Mar 17, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't support anything that is less
I support more. I am an American and I always want more. I want more points than the other team.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no no that is backward
The team that scores more points wins. – Elgin
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 17, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post
and discussion starter. I absolutely go with the ugly win rather than the beautiful loss. I would rather see the PTB win a championship with slow it down, grind it out, than 2nd with “exciting” fastbreaks and alley oops. But how far? I coach high school ball and with 6 minutes to go in the game, my team up 5, do I stall? Many teams are successful in doing that. So far, I haven’t had the players with high enough Bball IQ to stall effectively, but something inside of me cringes at the thought of playing THAT ugly to win… but in the context of the NBA (with shot clock), play ugly if need be and HANG A BANNER BABY!
Sometimes I feel like I'm going in different directions...
by porterfan30 on Mar 17, 2009 11:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to be a jerk (kind of)
and deconstruct your comment: you are stuck in an ambivalent position. Your all-caps proclamation has you disagreeing with me, but a voice within you (“something inside of me”) is disgusted with the idea of playing ugly ball to win.
I’ll take it one step further: look at your avatar, friend. GAZE UPON YOUR OWN NAME! Porterfan30? And you are arguing for ugly ball and a championship? Why, you’ve forgotten who you are! How will you handle the shame?
Alright, I’m done being a jerk (kind of). Obviously some people will disagree with me and that’s fine, but I’m still curious to see what happens if we, even for a minute, escape the prestige of the potential championship.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clarification...
the “voice” shows that there is a two sides to the debate. Everyone likes beautiful ball but I’d rather get the ‘ship’. I wasn’t alive to see ’77 or my avatar might be Lucasfan.
Sometimes I feel like I'm going in different directions...
by porterfan30 on Mar 19, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's take as a given that the Blazers won't win three four or five championships in a row.
They might win a couple or three over the next ten years if things go well.
So, just rfom an aesthetic point of view, would it be good to win one next year and suffer through years of drought or years of coming close ut not quite getting over the top, as the laurels we rest on recede into the past, or would you rather achieve success in slow increments topping out with a championship say four or five years from now.
My hunch is that many folks would want that C next year, but if it happens, I can also safely predict that every subsequent year without one will be a dismal and disappointing failure for many, punctuated by angsty cries for rolling heads and new players.
I want to watch sweet basketball played by guys I don’t have to be ashamed of rooting for. What happens, happens.
by raoulduke on Mar 17, 2009 11:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That is a fear I have too
I expect a championship this year and I know it is hard. After the Blazers win this year, it will be expected they win next year, but Kobe and LeBron are still out there. Sometimes I fear that too much Blazers success will drive me away from Blazers Edge.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Out here on the perimeter there are no stars
Out here, we is stoned, immaculate
by raoulduke on Mar 17, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
L*kers laying on dawn's highway, bleeding
trophies fill the young Blazers
dusty lonely case
by bamkapow on Mar 17, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
heavy Morrison
"Sergio and I obtained chalupas to understand their power. Then Sergio showed that each one has 427 calories and 27 grams of fat. Leaping upwards, we reviled the accursed chalupa and its pressure. – Rudy Fernandez
by LetsBlaze on Mar 17, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An argument for Blazer success?
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Mar 17, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regular Season vs. Playoffs
I suspect that this may be a difference of opinion regarding how high you want to be and for how long—detroit vs. suns ball as the case in point. It is nice to watch months of artistic, fast paced, high flying basketball. It’s a long stretch of warm and fuzzies and, “dang these guys are fun to watch”-es.
But compared to the few weeks of hearpounding euforia that comes with playoff series wins…culminatinating in a champoinship…it leaves some a bit flat.
For the even-keelers who just want be grinning they’re way through winter and early spring, the former is the ticket.
For those high flying manic-depressives who want to burn hot and fast, if just for a few moments, and collapse in their seat in the end—sweaty, exhausted and hoarse—it’s championship or bust.
Nobody’s right or wrong. Just pick your poison.
Those who want both…maybe it’s out there, but historically speaking, it’s a rarity.
by Dunemonkey on Mar 17, 2009 12:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Showtime Lxkers
That’s what I want from this group.
Three wins in a row, from the team that outran everyone and rolled up its sleeves and dug out wins when it had to.
We can do this. – Elgin
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 17, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think you need lebron for that...
…the swingman most like magic. 2010 NY knicks? Brooklyn Nets? Montreal Pacers?
by appel82 on Mar 17, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we should have gotten him before the trade deadline
remember all the RLEC for LeBron links to the trade machine? Why didn’t we do that?? – Elgin
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 17, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do they have to be mutually exclusive?
Can beauty hold sway to also championships?
I didn't mean to turn you on
by dukedee on Mar 17, 2009 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but it's rare and hard to maintain.
Magic’s showtime Lakers, maybe, some of MJ teams. I can’t think of many teams in the modern era that played pretty ball and won more than once with the same core.
by raoulduke on Mar 17, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those Lxkers would have won even more if it were not for the worthiness of the Celtics at that time.
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 17, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow amazing post.. just awe inspiring
can I rent you for parties?
I guess that I’m going to say both. I enjoy watching exciting basketball; I’ve admitted previously on this board to having grown up a fan of the showtime dynasty of the 80’s. I also stated that I lost all love for that team when the new era began. Although most of my childhood friends and family were thrilled to see the L*kers back in winning mode, I actually took offense that these L*kers won the three-peat my team couldn’t. Part of it was that I had reached a point where basketball had stopped being enjoyable. A lot of it was that I didn’t like these players or the game they played.
When I got into the Blazers this decade, it was during the downturn. Old players were being shipped off left and right and the number of wins plummeted. But I enjoyed the effort and how things were building and shaping each successive year – the bad left, but just one alright draft and one amazing draft later and the future got really bright really quick.
How you play is important.. but it also has to go somewhere. The Suns were a fun team a couple of years ago, but I get frustrated by a system that cannot evolve. And basketball is really a model of the evolution of cooperation in a competitive environment. Like all evolutionary games, winners can adjust because the system is adaptable. For all of the fun of the Suns, there was no adaptation. They couldn’t capitalize on their strengths while adjusting to compensate for their differences. The one time they have a legitimate chance; Horry demonstrates just how ugly winning can be.
"Slum dunk? You just go to the rim, and crush.. crush the ball in the rim."
- Nic Batum
by idoltime on Mar 17, 2009 12:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ugh... that last sentence is so true. What an ugly moment
If you can't laugh at yourself, everyone else probably is already.
by cafe_civet on Mar 17, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For as good a decision maker as Nash was/is with the basketball
I don’t care how scrappy he is, he is terribly stupid about going after much bigger stronger players then him
+ he’s Canadian
Rooo-D!
by truls on Mar 17, 2009 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Suns were a fun team a couple of years ago, but I get frustrated by a system that cannot evolve.
I submit that the system didn’t evolve perhaps because that group of players had gone as far as it was going to go. Instead of changing out players, though, they did the easy thing and fired their coach and GM. Oops. Now they have an inferior system AND inferior players.
I like what we have going but I’ll always be a fan of that D’Antoni style. I’d rather have a coach like that than like Popovich. I respect Pop so much – you can’t argue with that level of success. But if they let me choose, I’d want speedy basketball and lots of scoring. – Elgin
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 17, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They evolved beautifully. They just needed a bit less bad luck.
Those Suns hit their stride under D’Antoni’s guidance. They might have won a title barring the unfortunate bench-clearing incident in the 2007 WC semifinals and not having Amar’e in 2006.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 17, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A bit less Sarver might have helped, too
The Suns were the only contending team to actively trade away key pieces of their roster solely to get under the tax. The reason they had to trade for Shaq last year was to fill the gaping hole in the middle which was due to their gift of Kurt Thomas and 2 #1’s to the Sonics.
Plus, if you figure they had kept any one or two of Deng, Rondo, or Sergio (all draft picks they sold), that might have been enough to put them over the top in one of those years.
by Royster on Mar 17, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec
Championships are nice, but they usually don’t come very often or to every team. So for me winning one is not the standard by how I rate my teams or how much I enjoy and appreciate them.
That doesn’t mean I don’t like winning. It was certainly more fun following the 1996 Orioles than just about any of the team since. And getting to watch the Redskins in the Superbowl usually makes for a more enjoyable season than watching them stumble along to a .500 record. But I’m a fan of these teams no matter what. I enjoy the excitement and hope in the chance that this year my team just might make the playoffs, or that this season we discover a couple of surprise young players to build around.
We have all that with the Trailblazers. Good play, an exciting young team with loads of pieces to build from, what looks like a certain chance to make the playoffs and perhaps best of all, players that we can’t help but like and fall in love with as fans. Therefore I say we leave the crying to Alexander and the rest of the NBA. For we, as Portland fans, have a glorious future.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Mar 17, 2009 12:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Your thoughts here bring up a question hidden in my post: If/When we reach the championship summit, will we ultimately look back on this time as the most enjoyable?
This question, of course, is useless—it’s only purpose is to do what your comment suggests we should: stop anticipating and start relishing.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but you can still have relish with a championship hotdog!!!
By the way that was a truly brilliant piece you put together. Hans Gruber, well done sir. This is why B.E. is top notch and second to none, in my opinion.
by JmarcL4 on Mar 17, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
I’m just doing a mental calculation, but I think the level of disappointment after losses was greater and the euphoria after wins was less this year than last year. Expectations destroy reality and make it disappointing.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd have to agree with most of that
but the wins which held significance in terms of the progress this team has made were just as euphoric. ie: San Antonio, Houston, Boston, Dallas…oh wait, I hate Dallas. We match up against them so poorly.
If you can't laugh at yourself, everyone else probably is already.
by cafe_civet on Mar 17, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think yes for a majority of the fans
They would look back on this time as extremely enjoyable. When the Blazers won their first and only championship, I distinctly remember the joy they brought me and it was a journey albeit a short one. I remember a tough best of three against Chicago, beating Denver, Gilliam’s game against the Lakers, Walton’s Dunk, losing the first two in Philly, Lucas/Dawkins, beautiful team ball vs. individual play, Walton dominating, Twardzik twisting, Gross holding his own against the Doctor, Walton’s tip and subsequently tossing his jersey and finally the parade where Walton had his bike stolen.
I do remember anticipating and relishing both at the same time. I also think this somewhat jaded me as I always compare the beauty of that team to any team (Portland or otherwise) and find that beauty lacking. Still pretty but not beautiful.
"I saw him in the face" Sergio's quote on the latest alley-oop to Rudy.
by blazermaniac32 on Mar 17, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
what he said.
Bedge or go home.
by Ojala John on Mar 17, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, okay, here’s a test for those who are still skeptical: who would you rather root for: the 2003-04 Pistons or the 2005-06 Suns? 95-96 Sonics or 98-99 Spurs? 61-62 Philadelphia Warriors or 61-62 Celtics? Yeah, I went there—those Celtic teams were mostly boring.
This really depends. I really liked the teamwork of the Pistons. I loved the Payton-Kemp show in Seattle, but again, I liked the teamwork in San Antonio…(can’t really comment on the 60s teams because I was -30 years old)….
Ultimately, I’d be a fan of the team that was class guys that played team ball. I don’t care if somehow JR Rider, Darius Miles, and Ruben Patterson could somehow put up 150 points a night….I wouldn’t root for them because it would presumably be me-first ball. I would be paying for a bunch of jerks to live the NBA lifestyle. Obviously, that’s an extreme, and I’m not saying the Suns or Sonics were that. I am saying that I want my support to go to the team that puts the t-e-a-m in TEAM.
I guess what I’m trying to say is I want to be the nice guy who rules the world, not the rude, arrogant, elitist, egotistical ruler. I don’t know which Alexander was, but I don’t want to be a -BEEP!- that everyone despises. (of course, jscot is the future ruler of the world, so any talk about anyone else being such is rather pointless…but I digress).
I want a good group of guys that share the rock. I see enough me-first attitude on the news every night. I want to see something different on my basketball team. I want to see the Portland TrailBlazers.
Bedge or go home -- Sabonis4Ever
by prezofdeath on Mar 17, 2009 1:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
too long to read
Ha just kidding. I agree. Why do dictators always got to be d-words?
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
doh-dohs?
Bedge or go home -- Sabonis4Ever
by prezofdeath on Mar 17, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dopplegangers...
If you can't laugh at yourself, everyone else probably is already.
by cafe_civet on Mar 17, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if the Blazers win a championship or 5
they’ll just end up being Ozymandiasized.
Open invitation: all you who are self-proclaimed ping pong experts. If you think you can beat me - or if you just want to see how it's really played: cdd37@yahoo.com. This means you, too, Jerryd.
by TTRocks on Mar 17, 2009 1:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The NBA will keep changing rules, they've shown this
Portland owns Boston with the 6 man play: They make a rule change.
Pritchard crushes everyone with his off season skills: They cure Darius to hurt our crap
The future:
Portland wins a title: It is no longer legal to have starters whose last initials can spell OAR
Portland wins a 2nd title: Only 1 foreign player per team
Portland wins a 3rd title: Players over 6’9 may not shoot from outside the key
Portland wins a 4th title: They force us to move to South Dakota where there is no fan base and where the team crumbles.
by Zaig on Mar 17, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I will follow them to South Dakota...
I kind of like the SoDaks
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Mar 17, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no such place as "South Dakota"
Believe me. I’ve been there.
Open invitation: all you who are self-proclaimed ping pong experts. If you think you can beat me - or if you just want to see how it's really played: cdd37@yahoo.com. This means you, too, Jerryd.
by TTRocks on Mar 17, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
great point of view
all i care is for good basketball, yes the hardware is nice, but pretty ball should win. gotta start somewhere, it should be your craft
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life,(of the Blazers), (of KP's madness), of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity." - Albert Einstein
by BlazerandBeaverBELIEVER on Mar 17, 2009 1:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I love this post
I want to say it is a “stop and smell the roses” post, except that it is so much deeper than that.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 1:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you lost me at “hello”.
The cowards never started
The weak died along the way
Only the strong survived
They were the Trailblazers
by lukeyhere on Mar 17, 2009 2:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nightbluefruit, you write exceptionally well.
’I am probably one of ten or twelve people who really can’t wait for Pop to write his book." nightbluefruit
I am probably one of many people who really can’t wait for Nightbluefruit to write her book.
Your thoughts are so well laid out and stated so clearly and concisely. I’m jealous! Let me know when you publish.
"Aneurysm".
When Outlaw wins a game on a last-second shot, it’s called an "annthefaneurysm". QualityPie
by annthefan on Mar 17, 2009 2:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Writing is for men
I want her in the calendar.
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NBF has a blog
That she thinks we all forgot about.
Karma
by Sabonis4Ever on Mar 17, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
link please?
I’d read it. – Elgin
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 18, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everything from Death Mask’s Singin’ in the Rain post up to the post on Goya is top-notch. The entire body of work, however, may not be worth your time.
:)
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 18, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is a reason Don Nelson and Mike D'Antoni will always have jobs
Even if they don’t produce winners, they advocate fun and exciting basketball, which in turn sells tickets.
I would rather watch 100 Golden State games than 1 Piston’s game.
At the same time, I would rather watch 100 Blazer victories in any fashion, than watch 1 Blazer loss…
I would argue that for a disinterested fan, someone who enjoys basketball but doesn’t have a rooting interest in either team, the “exciting” team will invariably draw more fans (SSOL Phoenix, Nellie Ball, etc) but if you have a rooting interest in a team (ie, every Blazer fan here) you could care less if you play at the leagues slowest pace grind em out lockdown defense snore fests, if it results in a win you ultimately don’t care.
So there is obviously a balance, I don’t know how many “new” fans those grind em out Knicks teams of the 90’s earned, or how many new Piston’s fans were drawn in during their recent run of success (or heck, how many fans San Antonio captured during all their success)… while I know I have paid attention to teams like Phoenix, Dallas, and Golden State over the last few years just because of the style of ball and excitement they generate.
Interesting question you have posed, I need to think on this more.
Great post, rec’d for sure.
by diskord on Mar 17, 2009 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
everyone knows how ultimately futile the argument is , right?
It’s part of the sports experience , the neverending debate. It’s why ESPN and CNNSports get good ratings. (in part)
Entertaining basketball is not always a winning team (last year) but a championship is a way to validate my own irrational love for something I cant control :) So yeah a championship is critical. I think most fans , at least worth an salt would have to admit as much
Sophia
Though patience be a tired mare, yet she will plod. - William Shakespeare
Roses are red
violets in bloom
Sophia’s in love
with Nicholas Batum
-Bow4Meow
by BlazerFan1 on Mar 17, 2009 3:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
proof reading... at least any worth his or her salt*
Though patience be a tired mare, yet she will plod. - William Shakespeare
Roses are red
violets in bloom
Sophia’s in love
with Nicholas Batum
-Bow4Meow
by BlazerFan1 on Mar 17, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Lot's Wife in this example
I am not worth my salt because I refuse to look in the direction preordained for me. I am in turn transubstantiated into, literally, my weight in salt because the dominant ideology has no place for me, I am commodified.
But now I’m being ridiculous on purpose: my point is that I disagree with your assessment that ESPN and CNNSports thrive on the debate I’ve brought up. They are as embroiled in the ideology of the championship as anyone else. I am challenging people to step outside that frame of reference and re-examine the realm of possibility. It is a realm in which no one wants to trade for Shane Battier anymore.
PS How have you been?
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That realm my be easier to inhabit for Steerlers fans
We love ugly. The uglier the better.
by raoulduke on Mar 17, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you just raised the best question so far, which is, who is to determine that what is “ugly” and what is beautiful are mutually exclusive? While the Steelers, with their emphasis on run defense and run offense, would seem to fit the ugly bill, their play also contains an aesthetic thrill that isn’t possible to describe within the ugly/beautiful opposition.
Their win over Baltimore in the playoffs this past season was certainly ugly, but at the same time it was a thing of beauty to behold.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heck
I’m old enough to remember the championship.
The 1977 Sixers were the ‘pretty & exciting’ team to watch with Dr.J’s high-flying dunks, Darryl Dawkins’ thundering jams, and World B. Free’s flamboyance on and off the court. The Blazers were much more like the current Spurs. Hard working with excellent basketball fundamentals – there wasn’t a lot of flash. However, their play was a thing of beauty – sort of like comparing Queen Anne architecture (Sixers) to Bauhaus (Blazers).
Great post, BTW. Let’s see more!
And remember, NBF, sometimes a nutty-buddy is just a nutty-buddy. :-)
by DonkeyShins on Mar 18, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot to point to the debate
i was referring to. The debate is between pointguards and whos better KG or LBJ… that’s what I meant. Not your thesis.
I like these arguments(pg v pg) . but i also agree with your point that sports and it’s existence is a bit narrowminded right now. And I think this is the perfect remedy for blazersedge.com which has been inundated w/ trade the team away freaks who refunse to be a fan. ( im a member)
Im not gonna lie though I want a ring . It’s irrational as I pointed out but thats me. I tried to point to others and kind of remove the light off myself but it didn’t work . All fans perceive their object in a different way. Its media driven fanhood now a days which means entertainment and ratings and money ultimately the money isnt good untill a ring/trophy/1stplaceprize is won. Therefor were led to believe our team isn’t good unless they get that ultimate prize. Or the conversation at least is driven towards the championship only. Well it’s not true and we can enjoy the product, be entertained and the team can maintain a decent revenue stream as long as the team is winning, without the championship.
Your argument is pretty well layed out. How can i argue, that would be dumb.
Sophia
PS
Im doing very well thanks! How have u been?
Though patience be a tired mare, yet she will plod. - William Shakespeare
Roses are red
violets in bloom
Sophia’s in love
with Nicholas Batum
-Bow4Meow
by BlazerFan1 on Mar 17, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm in awe of you
Superman wears Tyler Hansbrough underwear. - JTDuck22
by maid tu rek on Mar 17, 2009 3:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Entropy is always increasing.
Nightbluefruit will talk less like a college professor and more like us soon enough.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 17, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, you are genuinely making me bust up at this point—have you always been this funny?
I know it ruins the joke when you explain it, but you use entropic thermodynamics to explain why my writing style will eventually normalize. I love it.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's how I cover-up for my lack of education.
In reality, I wouldn’t know a superconducting supercollider from a hole in the ground.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 17, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now you’re just being silly.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awkward....
nightbluefruit and MiledAnimal,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G!
First comes love
Then come marriage
Then comes a baby
In the baby carriage!
by tominhawaii on Mar 17, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then comes marriage
where Sophia gets that ring that she wants. – Elgin
Blazers win BDL 2 on 2 tournament!
Skeets: i’ll close it down now … congrats. you bastards
by 22baylor on Mar 17, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't be ridiculous. That was just a fling.
You’re the one I love. Trust me.
by MiledAnimal on Mar 17, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great post, nbf!
Thanks for articulating some things I would have said if I could have said them half as well.
However, I have at times opined that NBA basketball is, after all, entertainment, and that I, personally, am more entertained by great displays of talent, athleticism, and imagination on the court than by winning, per se. Hence, my fondness, for example, for Sergio’s adventures.
If this basic incarnation of the Blazers does win a championship, I believe I’ll look back most fondly on the time leading up to it. This is the time of anticipation and dreams. And the Blazers of today are the most entertaining NBA team I can recall.
Let’s count our blessings.
by CatMan2 on Mar 17, 2009 3:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"beutiful" losses don't feel as good as "ugly" wins
vicarious life is about feeling something you would otherwise not. Thus, sports are about the end more then the means. A championship is the validation that relieves the nessessaty to “look deeper” for any percieved asthetics. Everybody gets to feel it.
What's the point?
by maid tu rek on Mar 17, 2009 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It is probably true that truly artistic basketball has to have the proverbial "happy ending," at least during the regular season....
…………………………… But there is truth to the observation that you don’t have to win it all for the experience to be fulfilling. See, for example, the 1979-80 (or whatever year it was) OSU Beavers, who were ranked #1 nationwide for a number of weeks but got snuffed in the first round of the tourney by Kansas State, I think it was… The two bad losses at the end (they got their butts handed to them by ASU in the last regular season game) somewhat tarnished the season, but ultimately didn’t lessen it. That’s still a great, great memory.
Similarly, Mariners baseball a few years back, before the suckage set it. The finale wasn’t happening but the game after game after game RIDE during the “Two Outs…….. No Problem” season was cool and memorable.
But those artistic teams were ultimately artistic successes because they won and won and won and won during the regular season, bad endings notwithstanding. Stylish losses don’t cut it, just ask Golden State.
Pontiff of the Pryz for Prez Posse...
by timbo on Mar 17, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
only winning is universaly accepted
losing is “tolerated”, or covered up with a cloak of culture, by those attempting to wrest every drop of satisfaction from their chosen outlet. Most though, are unable to fain sufistication to the degree needed to “feel” good about a loss, so the outlet is cast aside, ie. bandwagon fans.
theres a certain saticefaction in over acheving, but even still, as we over achieve, our expectations adjust, and you feel whats itialacized and bolded in your statement.
The two bad losses at the end (they got their butts handed to them by ASU in the last regular season game) somewhat tarnished the season, but ultimately didn’t lessen it. That’s still a great, great memory.
But this can be intellegently argued from both side, and multable angles. Joy and apriciation can be found at just about any point in the journy. A championship is simply a stamp that grants universal permition to savor beyond the moment. It’s unsubjective validation. It’s not how you play the game, but whether you win or lose. the most common denominator is the most basic truth. IMO
What's the point?
by maid tu rek on Mar 17, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Safe to say it's not always pretty
by Norsktroll on Mar 17, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I enjoy watching the Blazers
Karma
by Sabonis4Ever on Mar 17, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait a minute now,
how can a loss be beautiful? When you reflect on the Drexler/Porter teams, you recall the joy from their success, not the agony of their defeat at the hands of the Pistons/Bulls in 90/92 and the Lakers in 91. The beautiful play of those teams is remembered by that success, not by the defeats. It is why the 77 championship is remembered more fondly than the two WCF championships, because they won.
Look at the 18-1 NE pats as another example. They achieved a better record than any team has ever accomplished but their one loss marred the entire season. I would be suprised if fans of the super bowl winning giants would be willing to trade their championship for New England’s record, despite the “beauty” of NE’s style.
by premthegrem on Mar 17, 2009 5:20 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think I see where the confusion is coming from
In the case that there are those who still think I’m crazy, who think that beautiful basketball that loses in the end is still just losing basketball
Is this the part that makes it seem like I think losses can be beautiful? Because what I was trying to get at are winning teams who ultimately lose, like the Patriots. Whose fans should be happy, because they put together a beautiful season. And I hate the Patriots. Like, really hate.
"Literary Criticism is not bookkeeping." -SB
by nightbluefruit on Mar 17, 2009 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hear is the disconnect
Whose fans should be happy, because they put together a beautiful season.
What's the point?
by maid tu rek on Mar 17, 2009 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get it
When (not if) we win the championship, the seasons after are going to be a disappointment if we don’t win it all again. I spend time at the Spurs blog and the entire regular season is ho-hum and not fun. That being said, we could be a dynasty.
Karma
by Sabonis4Ever on Mar 17, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beautiful basketball
in my book is an up tempo share the basketball style. If I were a fan of this type of team I would enjoy watching it even if it didn’t win, but I would REALLY enjoy it if it won. A walk it up, slug it out team is only enjoyable to watch if it wins. If the current Blazers didn’t win, they would be excruciatingly boring to watch. They play a style I pretty much can’t stand, but they have such a great bunch of guys who are going to win you can’t help but enjoy them.
"And look at Robin dancin' around Ha Ha Haaaah!
by The Rubberband Man on Mar 17, 2009 8:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ahhh .. this is why I come to this site
anything can be sublime .. sports included. Thank you, nightbluefruit.
by jayfisher on Mar 18, 2009 12:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The shark is beautiful. The platypus is at best, "pretty"
I don’t have the eloquence to elaborate. The cerebellum required to meaningfully add any more than a quip to such a sublime post is reserved for better fans than I.
"It was White vs. Purple that's all I know." - B Roy
by pxilpooshr on Mar 18, 2009 12:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
