It's Only "Weird" if You Lose

Agent Zero gets the Klosterman treatment in PLAY. It's an eminently readable piece, but it leaves me disquieted. Bethlehem Shoals gets at much of the problem, but let me attempt to rephrase somewhat. At its best, Gilbert's game is mercurial. It's not only that he can hit a very long three if that's the only shot available at the end of the clock; he sometimes will take that shot early in the clock, calmly walking the ball up the court, realizing that his defender hasn't deigned to guard him closely that far out. He also has a move where, for no real reason, he just keeps dribbling and dribbling doing nothing until there's not enough time left for a drive to the basket and then makes the drive because he's that fast.

But he's not just a dude with a quick drive and a long range, he's a guy who might take that long shot at any time and can blow past you at any time -- it's never too early, never too late, he plays with no conscience. This is important to making him effective. The risk of the long bomb early in the clock sets up the drive. The risk of the drive late in the clock sets up the long bomb. That's Basketball 101, but it's also Gilbertology 101; all the rest of the "weirdness" serves to render the predictable cultivation of unpredictability once again unpredictable. Other players have "so many ways to beat you" applied methodically; Gilbert has crazy skills and is a crazy man, you never know what he's going to do. This is part of his game not part of his marketing pitch.

Comments

1. Shoals's original post on Klosterman's articles was such an unbelievably stretched reading of Gilbert's comments that I'm forced agree with the original anonymous commenter (about whom I assume Shoals is complaining): what's weird is Shoal's commitment to Arenas as exotic and strange.

2. I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. He shoots threes he shouldn't. Great. He's Antoine Walker. Arenas makes them. OK, he's a good Antoine Walker.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 5, 2007 10:04 AM

This is only peripherally related, but why does anybody pay Chuck Klosterman money to write about sport?

It's clearly not his forte. He's that maddening amalgam of hand-in-front-of-face obviousness and navel-gazing self-awareness. It works marginally well for pop-culture reporting, and somewhat better for dating memoirs.

Posted by Jimmmm | March 5, 2007 10:07 AM

Gilbert's ways are not for us to know.

It was a blast being in the arena for yesterday's finish. Everyone was laughing as it sank in that Nelly had picked up a tech. So much of the game was frustrating that the end came as a great relief. Note: You'll hear the usual defense complaints, but what actually happened yesterday was, 1) Poor shooting, of the "good shots that just don't fall" variety; 2) AWFUL free-throw shooting by Antawn; 3) Pathetic, stupid play at both ends of the court by Etan, early; 4) Hardly any offensive rebounding by the Wiz until late in the game.

Change any two of those, none of which touch on "defense" per se, and the game is not close.

Posted by Jim Henley | March 5, 2007 10:08 AM

Also, Antonio Daniels played a surprisingly cowardly game. He kept passing up shots and shying from drives that were there for the taking. It seemed very out of character.

Posted by Jim Henley | March 5, 2007 10:09 AM

it's never too early, never too late, he plays with no conscience. This is important to making him effective.

This calls into question some of your thinking about "taking options off the table," tho.

Posted by dj moonbat | March 5, 2007 10:34 AM

"Gilbert has crazy skills and is a crazy man, you never know what he's going to do."

So he's like Nixon?

Posted by delicious Pundit | March 5, 2007 10:37 AM

SCMT--I took the first post down in response to an anonymous commentor who called my reading shallow and generic. He was right, so I got to the heart of things: that most Arenas-jocking has become shallow and generic, whereas there was something more to him before this. Sorry I didn't get it perfect the first time; if blogs don't have room for trial and error, I should have an editor and a publisher.

I'm not committed to Arenas as strange. I've followed him since his first season in the league and KNOW he's more than just a little silly. Maybe my need to find this in Klosterman's article was somewhat pathetic, but that's a commentary on what's become of public Arenas. Not some fanboy obsession on which my basketball universe balances.

Posted by shoals | March 5, 2007 10:50 AM

Shoals:

Fair enough. I think your prior post, regarding Kobe's "no conscience" comment, was right on the money and actually got to the heart of the issue: it's unclear what structure or theory of basketball informs Gilbert's style of play, and that, given his effectiveness, is what makes Arenas so compelling.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 5, 2007 11:09 AM

Matthew is dead on here.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2007 11:14 AM

This posts gets at the uniqueness of Arenas. The NBA is an inprovisational league, but within well defined conventions. A player has certain expectations and his game is based on other players fitting within those expectations. The last play was a perfect illustration of how Arenas defies those conventions.

The ball was inbounded with 2.9 seconds left. Raise you hand if you thought he would take a 3 from the top of the key? I did, his defender did, and I suspect every Wizard and Warrior on the court did. Instead he quite leisurely brought the ball to the top of the key and then launched his wild-assed hurtle to the hoop. Who expected that? An in yet another defiance of convention, he leans into the defender, not merely to get the foul, but fully expecting to make the shot despite the contact and to draw a foul. Will the league catch up to Arenas, who is always on the down beat? Maybe, but they haven't yet and it is a pure joy to watch.

Posted by dmh | March 5, 2007 12:58 PM

Great post, great comments.

On a somewhat related topic, I hate hate hate when players fling their bodies into each other to get the foul. The NBA has to stop that crap. Wade and Kobe do it all the time too.

Posted by MQ | March 5, 2007 1:07 PM

...and Gilbert comes across in the article as extremely intelligent, which is good.

Posted by MQ | March 5, 2007 1:13 PM

I haven't watched pro hoops in time out of mind. But maybe it's time for that to change, given that my city finally has an interesting pro team for the first time in an eon.

Posted by RT | March 5, 2007 1:45 PM

while he's tremendously talented (obviously), zero plays more like someone you might run with at the gym than most other NBA superstars. to me, this makes him much more relatable, and thus likeable.

Posted by dj superflat | March 5, 2007 1:51 PM

to me, this makes him much more relatable, and thus likeable.

Also, his swag is phenomenal!

Posted by Jim Henley | March 5, 2007 2:42 PM

For his next article, Matt should reconcile his Gilbert Doctrine with the Giblets Doctrine.

Posted by Jackmormon | March 5, 2007 2:55 PM

So, in other words, the best player on your favorite team is, like, really awesome.

Posted by Freddie | March 5, 2007 3:32 PM

Both Gilbert’s game and his persona are based on a kind of pre-meditated unpredictabilty, as Matt describes. However his quirkiness is also genuine. Gilbert's a fairly odd guy, but at the same time he’s self-aware enough to recognize his own unique qualities and exploit them to his advantage. It’s a pretty rare combination.

Posted by RC | March 5, 2007 4:30 PM

what i find interesting is that gilbert's actually alternative because he's not following a template. e.g., lots of young players seem to think a few tats or an interest in rap make them transgressive, but that's a pretty dated aesthetic (it's like the kids on the street wearing docs and braces thinking that's alternative somehow, rather than a look that was old 20 years ago). rodman was rocking the tats by the mid-90s, athletes have been into rap since forever (superbowl shuffle anyone?). and gilbert's just plain likeable, because he responds to being in the NBA the way you'd think more athletes would respond -- "this is awesome fun, how lucky am i!!" -- rather than "it's so heavy having the weight of X city on my shoulders, all the money in the world, etc."

Posted by dj superflat | March 5, 2007 4:49 PM

I admit that I get neither Chuck Klosterman nor FreeDarko. I think I'm getting old. But I want to pile on and say that Matthew's exactly right here. Arenas's unpredictability really does make him an intersting and effective player. If you look at his shooting percentage, or his 3-point shooting percentage, it's not all that great. But when you add up his whole package - look at his TS%, for example - it really is more than the sum of those parts.

Posted by Al | March 5, 2007 6:44 PM

Everytime this discussion comes up, the word that lingers in my mind is "formedness". Actually, that's not a word, but with respect to basketball, it should be. Pretty much every effective NBA player, especially perimeter players has a certain degree of structure built into their game. You almost have to, because the endless repetition of certain motions which is necessary to instinctive and automatic performance in the moment is almost self-limiting. Even the most notorious knuclkeheads play with a certain rhythm - Stephen Jackson, Ron Artest, Starbury, etc., you as a fan a rarely really surprised by what they do once you've seen them play a few times. Astonished maybe, but we all know that when Marbury gets in the lane going right, he's going to cradle it like a tailback, duck under the big man, and try to scoop it in high off glass.

What makes Gil interesting, as a basketball player rather than as a 'personality', is the same with AI, and to some degree, Kobe, in that the repeatable pieces are much 'smaller' - he doesn't need to be at one of certain spots, or in the same rhythm off his dribble, to be comfortable getting into his shot. Other, lesser, players can venture outside of their comfort zone, but it never looks quite right, and the results are usually significantly worse.

I know Shoals hates the basketball-as-jazz metaphor, but this is really one of those instances where it is appropriate - the true improvisational greats are playing free jazz, while the others, your Melo's, your Wades, your Ray Allen's are soloing within a much more defined structure. They both can work, but the ability and understanding to pull the former off is as rare as it is undefinable.

All this is an excessively long winded way of agreeing with MY that what is more striking about Gil is the nature of his game rather than the his status as a goofball. You usually don't see much of a player's personality in the basketball qua basketball part, but rather during the dead time. With Gil, they seem much more linked.

Posted by Pooh | March 5, 2007 7:35 PM

The other improvisational great in the NBA? Manu Ginobili. Pure genius.

Posted by flickup17 | March 5, 2007 9:46 PM

manu is nuts, because when he's on, everyone else just seems to be standing around or moving at half-speed. it's like vince young running -- he doesn't look like he's moving out, but everyone else is just slipping behind.

Posted by dj superflat | March 6, 2007 1:06 PM