Wooo, spring break in Pendleton, Oregon. It didn't suck. I'm so glad I didn't have any money riding on the Final Four; my brackets look like the poor mangled wrecks that BigFoot used to run over. Seriously, two number 15 seeds into the round of 32?
Why was I at The Wild Horse Casino for spring break? Why, for the NorthWest Anthropological Conference of 2012, of course. The Sports Fiancee is an aspiring anthropologist who contributed research to one of the presentations at the aforementioned NWAC. I, being an aspiring linguist (among other things) tagged along and went to some of the presentations, especially those on linguistic anthropology.
What the hell does this have to do with sports? Well, one of the great things about English and anthropology is that we can study/write about just about anything. I went to a talk on the Bacon Phenomenon. I also went to a talk about Sportscasters' language in sports. I found the title interesting and decided that this would be more fun than losing money at the slots or crying in my beer at the sports bar as my brackets were taken out behind the woodshed and put down like a rabid chihuahua.
One of the points of said paper/presentation was to lament the use of language by sportscasters to describe role players in college and professional basketball. Looking at how much the announcers would talk about the stars on the teams vs. said role players, how much playing time one would get vs. the others, and how the players were talked about. The presenter used Marxist theory to point out that the sportscasters are using language to keep this lower/working class of basketball player down.
This also piqued my interest. Are we keeping these "noble savages," to use a phrase now frowned upon in anthropological as well as literary circles, from achieving their full potential by not talking about them as much as the Kobe Bryants, LeBron Jameses, or Derrick Roses of the basketball world? Are we infringing on their rights as people and basketball players to be treated with dignity and respect? Are we hindering their eventual earning potential by not highlighting them and giving them as much playing time as the previously mentioned stars? Are we $^&#ing stupid?!
Do the NBA and NCAA need more reasons for us not to really care about watching? Yes, there is a discrepancy between your mega stars and bench players. Commentators talk about the stars more because they play more. They play more because they are better players. Go fig, teams that want to win keep their stars in until the game is far enough out of reach that they are no longer needed. Kobe is averaging 38.8 minutes per game this season, LeBron is averaging 37.6 minutes, and Rose is averaging 35.6. Note that I didn't really have to use their full names because if you have even a passing knowledge of NBA basketball you know Kobe and LeBron. A regulation (non-overtime game is 48 minutes). This means that, not surprisingly, these three players play a bulk of their teams minutes at their position. Would we want to watch the Lakers with Andrew Goudelock playing at shooting guard? Do you think he scores as much as Kobe? Do you even know who the hell he is? What about Shane Battier, LeBron's back up. He, at least, is the foil to the "they don't talk about role players" argument. Battier has been written about quite a bit. Rose's bad back and toe have led to his replacement, C.J. Watson, having more playing time to a point we've also heard of him beyond passing (if you pay attention to the NBA).
We watch to watch stars. Arguably, that's the whole reason we have All-Star games. The NBA suffered a HUGE drop in popularity after Michael Jordan's three retirements. The championship runs of the San Antonio Spurs led to drops in NBA Finals ratings. It wasn't because the Spurs were a bad team. The fact they have multiple championships illustrates quite the opposite. But they aren't flashy. Tim Duncan, their star center during the duration is a fundamental player. He will kill you and he will kill you by the book. Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker make great plays, but they don't do it with flash. They don't rock the boat (Kobe, LeBron) they get out and do their jobs. Like it or not, Kobe, LeBron, Kevin Durrant, Rose, the Chris Paul/Blake Griffin duo are the faces of the NBA. They are the stars. They have their own highlights nightly on SportsCenter or YouTube. And we tune in to watch.
Are we going to watch highlights of Adam Morrison (deep bench warmer who has 2 more rings than you or I do) for the Lakers when he averaged a whopping 7.8 minutes per game in 2010? Is anyone outside of the Spokane area going to care that Morrison even made it to the NBA? It isn't some Machiavellian plot to keep Morrison down. It is because he didn't really play an NBA caliber game. Announcers talking about an Adam Morrison either don't use his name ("Lakers emptying the bench now") because most fans won't know it anyway or they don't use it because then they'd have to stop and tell you who the hell he is.
One of the complaints the anthropological presentation made was that role players are reduced to their roles. The particular phrase "the coach is putting in a couple of big bodies" irked the presenter. He thought that these players were being reduced to their limited role in the defense (maybe offense) to take up space, get rebounds, and hinder close shots. I have to ask if the speaker would have been offended if the statement was "the coach is putting in Purdue and Worthington for a couple of big bodies." Does that make the statement any less offensive because we know the names of the two individuals we've never heard of? What if the statement was "the coach is putting Shaquille O'Neal and David Robinson, for a couple of big bodies?" Does it make a difference if we know their names when they are Hall-Of-Famers? We've actually heard of them. Viewers who had a working knowledge of the NBA at the time would recognize the two. So why wouldn't it be offensive to call them a couple of big bodies?
Why are announcers going to spend time talking about a guy who's on the bench all but 7 minutes of the game unless he just tripped someone or got a technical for storming the court or some other boneheaded play? Describing why these players are coming in (couple of big bodies, 3-point specialist, defensive specialist) lets us know what the role is of these players who we've never seen. Most of the announcers actually do use players names when they are talking about them. They don't simply say "New Jersey's Center" (I have no idea who he is starter or otherwise, New Jersey isn't nationally broadcast and isn't really a very good team anymore, either) they say (pause to look it up) "Shelden Williams is checking in," or "heading to the bench" or "shooting an ill-advised three."
The speaker also complained about these poor players being pigeonholed into their positions. Seriously, are we going to have a debate as to why a 7 footer shouldn't play point guard? Or why Jeremy Lin shouldn't try his hand at power forward? Sometimes your body actually does define your job. Watching Shaquille O'Neal try to dribble down the court was amusing from the side but terrifying from the view in front. As evidenced here...note the bench finding it hilarious. Imagine Shaq bringing the ball down the court in a set play. If an actual point guard moved up to guard him, Shaq would either have to pick up the dribble and pass or the point guard (some of whom could stand under Shaq's dribble) would easily steal the ball and be off to the races the other way.
Bottom line newsflash: Players are not equal. You don't treat a pawn like a queen in chess; you don't treat a role player like a star in basketball; you don't treat a center like a point guard. All men are not created equal in the sports world. It is a fact. It is the way things are. If all men were equal skillwise, and everyone was equal with Michael Jordan, games would be closer and a hell of a lot more amusing to watch. Trade rumors would be non-existent because trades would be non-existent. I'll trade you this player who is perfectly equal to that player wouldn't make sense at all. Fantasy sports would be boring or equally nonexistent.
The language of basketball announcing reflects this nature. It isn't some insult or put down to a player if they are referred to as a "big body" or "defense specialist." It is defining the role of that player on the team. That player has a job to do within that association. The sportscasters are simply filling in those of us following along at home what that role is. Some roles are not needed as often as others. With a slight lead late in games, stars who were liabilities at the free throw line (Shaq) would be on the bench while five free throw shooters were on the floor. In many cases, teams would go with either five guards or have a small forward mixed in. Some of these guys wouldn't play all game, but would be in to shoot free throws during the final two minutes of a game. In this case, the game is on the line with "scrub" players in. And stars on the bench. Equal? No. Part of the sport? Yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment