Impressions of Mad Basketball

March Madness began again, and depending on one’s interpretation, the forms of the madness were many. Here we take various definitions and break them down:

A state of mental illness, presumably temporary – Ameer Ali’s flagrant flip of Blake Griffin. He did his best to imitate a WWF move, though Blake was wary of his own reaction. It almost appeared that the Griffin beast was subduing himself post-takedown, like he knew what he was getting into.

Ever notice how Blake gets into bits of entanglement and possible scuffles? There is a reason, though contorted and borderline insane, that an opposing player may rack someone in the (Bill Raftery) onions. I suppose Griffin is used to situations like that since nobody can stop him and he aggravates defenders beyond belief. I see a bit of Rodman in him – ferocious and frustration generating – mixed with Lebron – mightily skilled and unyielding at the hint of resistance. His breakaway dunk on Saturday? Look out below, and watch out for onions…

A feeling of intense anger – Western Kentucky coach Ken McDonald after his unnoticed or ungranted attempt to call at T.O. in the last second of the game against Gonzaga. He was glaringly perturbed, as we saw from his mouthing of that is “B-S!” while pointing at the ref who failed to acknowledge his plead.

Unrestrained excitement – The outcome of the Gonzaga lay-in made one of the Bulldog players’ quite enthused. His plyometric-like two feet bounding exercise that caused his knees to come all the way up to his ears – about 10 times in a row – was astounding. He had to have been sore the next day. Well deserved though, for sure. I believe a Siena player mirrored the same image, in just about the same area on the sideline. Perhaps a Saint was watching over that spot?

How about the final games of each night? Like the basketball world was waiting for excitement to build all at the same time… on Friday, the first O.T. game of the tourney coupled with another one, and, of course, a second extra period in the first Siena game where “we want Moore” nailed the two crucial 3-pointers that had Albany rocking.

Extra anger and frustration – this from the viewer’s perspective. Why can’t CBS try to figure out how to stagger starts of games so that when there are three or four games ending all in unison – and each is fewer than a 5-point margin – that we are able to watch them all in full? Would that not increase the viewing pleasure and ratings rather than having to open two laptops to access the free Madness package online? Or get out the iPhone app and hold a close game in one’s palm? Argh.

Overflowing with eagerness – getting to see North Dakota State’s Woodside go toe-to-toe with Kansas’ Collins. Talk about a shootout. And a fundamentally expert one at that. Yes, they can both catch-and-score, but their individual moves and the way each of them draws attention from the D is fascinating. Tight inside-outs, stop-and-go’s, crossovers, and the ability to finish. Woodside had 37 on 13-of-23 shots. Collins was 12-for-26 for 32 points. Though the latter finished with 8 dimes and only 2 TO’s… plus a big man who made up for any miscues – the same center who managed a rare tournament triple-double two days later, with 10 blocks mind you.

Maybe many were not, but I was intrigued by the Syracuse-Arizona State game, a contest that featured two zone defenses. One that is a traditional 2-3 and a Boeheim staple. Another that is a Sendek standard, an aggressive matchup – one that looks like man-to-man at times. Who said a game with a slower pace wouldn’t feature scoring? The final was 78-67 and five Orangemen reached double figures. And how about Boeheim's backing of Sendek's N.C. State release?

“I thought somebody was pretty stupid and somebody was pretty smart,” Boeheim said. “I’m not going to mention which one.”

Speaking of being mad, did James Harden’s stock sink in three days? If scouts are looking at scoring, then yes. He had 10 points in the biggest game of his career, and six of them came from the charity stripe. The game before, versus Temple, produced practically the same stat line, with a 1-point decrement. He averaged 6.5 boards, 4 assists, and 2 steals, but gee. I like his presence and the consistency he creates for his team. If the next level is looking for takeover though, that wasn’t it.

Making madness a mentality – learning about details of individual programs is insightful, like how team identities are created via certain coaches. What may seem unlikely for one team is another’s MO. John Beilein wants to shoot the three – so, that is what they do:

“The most important drill for the Wolverines in practice, not surprisingly, is a 3-point shooting drill. Players take 50 3-pointers in five minutes, and they have to make a certain number to avoid having to run sprints."

Rick Pitino is glued to statistics. The most influential one is the number of deflections his Cardinals create:

“The Cardinals believe success is determined by deflections, a statistic pioneered in part by Pitino. When they reach 35 deflections in a game, they usually win.”

Not sure how many defections they produced against Siena, but it couldn’t have been 35. The Cardinals only generated three steals to the Saints’ eight. And several of the latter teams’ thefts came in that second half span that pulled them ahead. Close call for the Cards, though it was bound to happen with the feistiness and quickness of that caliber backcourt. Look at this seasons’ losing results – a capable Western Kentucky topped them. And Connecticut’s Huskies ran right through their press for a total of 40, yes 40, points in the paint.

Coach K seemed mad with the President’s choosing of the rival Tar Heels, suggesting that there are other matters with which Obama should concern himself… though Coach K did later say he was kidding. If anything, efficiency was the name of Duke in the latest battle against Texas. The Blue Devils shot 50 percent from 3-point range, took 27 free throws, had 8 steals, and only 9 turnovers. The Tar Heels were just behind in those stats even though they play a much faster pace. Who is most economical?

Mad or not, act as if… this from one of the more enlightening articles the past few days. Harvard women’s coach Kathy Delaney-Smith preaches the positive mentality of becoming what you dream, what you imagine yourself being… “Act as if”, she says. It’s a way to believe, to convince oneself to play, to think, to be a certain way…. As if you are champion, a winner, a competitor. She sure is. I had the pleasure of knowing her, coaching her son at camp, and working with one of her players as a performance consultant. It’s nice to know that she worked to get to where she is, that she was driven to learn basketball and figure out how to teach the game to various personalities, and to dedicate her life to education centered around a ball.

The madness continues…

To Throw, or Not to Throw?

Andy Roddick's recent racket hurls at the U.S. Open beckon the question: release the rage or hold it in? The exploration involves both moral and psychological issues. For Roddick, his moments of mayhem have helped him defeat his opponent. As a model of composure, he has been as unsure as the the levees in New Orleans.

His second round recap from ESPN:

Andy Roddick smashed his racket not once but twice, leaving it a mangled mess that matched the state of his game at that point.

Facing a big deficit, staring at what would have been a big upset, Roddick suddenly changed everything against a younger, less-experienced, less-accomplished version of himself at the U.S. Open.

And his actions from Sunday in the New York Times:

It was sometime during the third set that Andy Roddick's racket met its demise. As he whipped it to the ground, little blue shards splintered onto the blue hardcourt, the latest victims of Roddick’s frustration. It was not quite the twisting, mangling punishment he had given the tools of his trade earlier in the United States Open, but on Sunday, he did not have as much to be upset about...

...Less than 30 minutes after he littered the court with racket crumbs, he completed a straight-sets victory over the 31st seed...

I had a chance to observe a current pro as he trained at MIT two days before heading to New York for the U.S. Open. His practice was focused and intense, every drill, every point played as if it were the last in a championship match. As I watched, I was impressed with his concentration. He meticulously practiced his serve with his hitting coach

Then he proceeded to fault, I suppose a very unsatisfactory one in his mind. With that miss, in a shocking show of frustration, he grabbed another ball and took an controlled, yet uncontrolled, swing and blasted the ball over the MIT dorm that overlooked the tennis courts. He smacked the ball as if the target was the Harvard boat house that sits on the Charles River.

And then, as if he had released every ounce of energy that evoked tantrum times as a toddler, he was calm again. He drove the next serve right by his partner for an ace.

The incident made me think about the frustration-aggression theory, in that once provoked, an emotion can build to the point of such aggravation that it can drive an athlete to change his persona, if only for a brief bit. However, in that 60 seconds, a violent phase can ensue and cause even the tamest human to display anger, by the whack of a ball with brutalizing force or the hammering of a racket into the ground…a matter that toys with one’s mental toughness and a situation that beckons one to "shape up or ship out".

Roger Federer was once asked about the controversial behavior that may seem minimal, yet is quite long lasting in memory:

Federer used to love that kind of show but is now campaigning to stamp the practice out. He said: "For kids watching, I want them to have a proper example. I enjoyed watching Goran, McEnroe and those guys throwing racquets. I thought it was funny. But at the same time, I don't think a tennis player needs to act this way.

"I think there are different ways and I hope that kids get inspired by this more than throwing racquets. But then again, I think it's okay, too, to throw a racquet here and there. It's not a problem."

What is interesting from a developmental perspective is that Federer was not always in control of his emotions; he discovered how to control and motivate himself in other ways. He even took a Michael Jordan stance, and would tell himself that he is in front of thousands of people who have never seen him play before:

I was very emotional. I was never the angry person, more the sad and disappointed person. I would cry a lot after losing matches; I would throw my racket in disappointment. It was very hard for me to accept missing three, four points in a row. The first one I could sort of accept. The second one would be like, well, now you better not miss the next one, but if I did, then the racket went flying. I'd have to scream or something, because it just wasn't acceptable. But as time went by, I started to relax. You get on center courts around the world, people are watching, and you're like, "Well, now I can't throw my racket," because it's embarrassing. Today I'm much more in control of myself, whereas before it was a weak point of my tennis. People would say, "If you can get to him mentally, you've got it." And now it's become a strong point in my game.

It was never easy for me. Because people were constantly saying I was talented and that I was going to make it, I always had that burden. It was like, if I make it, then I'm only doing what's expected of me, and if I don't, then I'm a disaster because I missed on a great career or wasted my talent. I also had a hard time working out. I would ask, "Why do I have to do this? I'll just be tired tomorrow." But I think by asking a lot of questions, I was able to learn. And then over the years, through hard work, my game started to become really fluid. I never really thought it was that way naturally, because I always felt I had to make a great effort. My technique was always sort of nice, but I was shanking a lot of balls, and I really had a tough time keeping the ball in the court. But by getting stronger mentally and physically, my game started to evolve, and all of a sudden I found myself where I am right now, dominating the game.

Now, just a year before the interview with Billie Jean King, Federer faced a youthful Rafael Nadal and the former showed off his heaving ability (yes, you can see the ordinarily centered Roger unravel in the video below).

Normally known for his serene presence on court, Federer did not turn the match in his favor until he became angry.

At the end of the ninth game of the third set, after missing a break-point opportunity, Federer uncharacteristically slammed his racket to the ground.

"I was really angry, so I threw it out," Federer said. "I was very disappointed. I was missing one opportunity after the other. I really felt like I'm climbing uphill all the time, and I had an opportunity and I missed it again, and I just had enough.

"Who knows, maybe it did me good, and I kind of woke up."

Nadal, ranked No. 31 in the world, felt that he was getting under Federer's skin.

"It's surprising to see Federer throw his racket, but it makes you think you're closer to victory because he's frustrated," said Nadal, who plays left-handed but does everything else right-handed.

In his own words, Federer admits to his tossing of strings, although a Gladwell Blink second (a fleeting, yet significant feeling) reminds the tennis star that certain actions are not the brightest, particularly as they relate to his own behavior and his pocket (not that he has to worry about affording new equipment):

I’ve broken a few rackets over my career, but only very few intentionally. It mostly happened out of anger and not because I wanted to break it, which I think is a big difference. When I throw it I try not to break it. Rackets are expensive, after all – somehow that always crossed my mind before it left my hand!

Considering these examples, it is safe to assume that more rackets will be committed to the air and the ground. Amateurs, however, need to consider the consequences, perhaps from a "Don't try this at home" perspective. Roddick and Federer have managed to use aggression releases to their advantages, though a perfect, positive correlation between racket tossing and winning is doubtful. The pros have demonstrated their resiliency, their capacity to quickly recover from a negative thought and its resulting behavior. By no means, though, do they advocate for their volatile actions. Competitiveness can get the best of them, at least for a few seconds.

It seems best to continue on the track of regulated intensity without obtrusive eruption. Unless, of course, society alters its views and racket throwing becomes categorized as some sort of art form.