Re: Pardon my enthusiasm

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

> From: "James A. Hill" <jahill@leasingservice.com>
>
> Mr. Bird do you even read what you write?  What nonsense.

Well, Jim, even though I thought what you wrote was misguided crap, I was 
polite enough not to say so in so many words.  That's OK, though, as from 
what I have read of your thoughts these years, I consider it a good thing 
that you disagree with me so vehemently.  Kind of a vindication more than 
anything else.

> 1. Shaq refuses to work on his free throws.  He refuses to shoot them the
> way the shooting coach's who have worked with him want him too.  It is a
> fact.  If he isn't embarrassed on his own, he should be.

He "refuses" to work on free throws?  Where do you get this stuff?  I hear 
reports that he works on his free throws quite a bit (although I will 
agree that it hasn't seemed to help much), and while you can't believe 
everything you hear, I doubt you're more privy to information in the NBA 
than I.  Further, if you wanted to focus on the *one* thing the guy does 
poorly, and not the *myriad* of things he does well, then ... what can I 
say? ... that seems ... myopic?  At best.  I guess Bill Russell ought to 
be ashamed because he wasn't a great free-throw shooter either?  Do you 
even hear yourself here?

> 2. Embarrassing them is not foolish. Look how it has helped Walker become 
> a
> better player.  (You think the boo's didn't effect him?) This is what
> Jackson does.  It worked on Kobe last year.  You have another motivational
> solution?

Surely you've heard of positive reinforcement as well as negative?  If not,
  you can look it up in a book.  Perhaps you're not aware of studies 
strongly suggesting positive reinforcement (mixed with a mitigated 
negative reinforcement, as well) is much more effective in training 
sentient creatures?  There's no need to embarrass people into doing what 
you want them to do.  That's the last bastion of the tyrant.  Or maybe 
even the first.  Suffice to say I would prefer to work under a more 
congenial environment.  If you do not, then you are a strange beast indeed 
(at least to me).

(Sure, it's the boo's that made Walker better.  Don't give him any credit.
   How would you raise children?  Would we hear: "That's not *good* enough!
" at your child's recital?  Perhaps you just boo until he or she improved?
)

> 3. If you actually read a post you would have noticed that I said "It's 
> not
> the missing that is the problem, it is the lack
> of effort he puts in to correct it."  This would offset your statement 
> "Some
> people work hard, do the best they can, and still fail or fall short of
> expectations.  Wow, what a shock."  No sh*t.  Which part is confusing?

Ask yourself this question, as you clearly do not see that point I am 
trying to make.  Now, if I'm wrong in characterizing your position, let me 
know, but you seem to be suggesting that effort is the key, and that if 
one only has the effort, one will succeed.  (If you're not, then you may 
admit that this idea is prevalent in our society, at least)  I'm only 
suggesting, in turn, that many people put forth a great amount and still 
fall short of expectations.  If you agree, you might consider just saying 
so without all the "No sh*t.  Which part is confusing?" crap that you felt 
the need to include.

You'll also please take the time to notice that I wasn't directly 
referencing your specific comment with my comment that you included, 
though in re-reading it I admit it gives that impression.  I merely think 
that there is a myth in our society that says that if you have effort, you 
have everything.  That's not true.

> 4. It's not naive to think that players are paid to produce.  It is
> apologists that reinforce the lack of accountability that are naive.

You may not think so, but the fact is that the NBA's contracts are such 
that a player gets paid no matter if he reaches the team's expectations or 
not.  Further, he only has to show up (if not injured) follow team and 
league rules and he gets paid.  Do you see how this is getting paid 
without producing?

> "They get paid regardless of production."  What a perfect statement to
> support anti-union legislation.  Let's cancel tenure as well.  What total
> nonsense.  Players are paid to produce in a team environment.  The more 
> they
> can contribute is usually reflected in their pay scale.  This is why 
> "many"
> fans would support non-guaranteed contracts as in the NFL.  To make it a
> "play for pay" league.

Yes, if contracts were not guaranteed, then it changes the dynamic such 
that, in effect, players would be paid to produce.  You do see how this is 
not the case in the NBA, don't you?

> 5. "Tell me, Jim, are you the best at what you do?"  As I said, it is your
> skill set that decides if you can be the best at what you do.  Effort will
> allow you to be the best that you can BE, regardless of skill set.  This 
> may
> be difficult for some to follow but it is a undisputed truism.

Oh, I see, an "undisputed truism".  Well, in that case, you're a genius.  
You may wish to believe in these "undisputed truisms" but I do not 
necessarily do so.  In fact, it's my opinion that only a fool would do so,
  as clearly if you think something is "undisputed" you merely do not have 
the wherewithal to attempt to dispute it.
Again, I would say that "effort *can* allow you be the best you can be", 
not "will".

> This is more nonsense.  Why, why, why? I'll tell you what, you give up on
> society being responsible for their choices if you want.  I choose
> otherwise.  But if you think that NBA players shouldn't be held to 
> standards
> reflecting a professional athlete what can I say?  I disagree.  If they
> don't want to play like a pro athlete then they can change professions as
> far as I'm concerned.  I support the team.  The players are but members 
> of a
> team.

What's "acting like a pro athlete" to you?  I never said they shouldn't be 
"held to standards reflecting a professional athlete".  I'm not even sure 
what the hell you *mean* by that.  By definition, NBA players *are* held 
to those standards, as in fact, they help *set* those standards by the 
mere fact that they *are* professional athletes.  You may not like those 
standards, but that 's not the issue.

Perhaps a concrete example might help.  Professional NBA players are asked 
to piss in cups to determine whether or not they smoke cannabis.  This is 
a much higher (no pun intended) standard than the average person.  Now, 
certain professions do require that sort of test.  Perhaps we don't want 
airline pilots lighting up a big spliffy in the cockpit, but I do not give'
s a flying fig if any NBA player does indulge.  In fact, I don't care if 
they pass around the bong before the game *and* during halftime.  You may,
  but that's not the exact point: it's about what standards, in addition to 
the "usual" ones (like, not committing felonies) that we all must live by.
  that you're going to hold athletes to.  There's no reason to hold 
athletes to many more standards than normal folk.  There's *just* athletes.
   People look to them as "role models" but that's stupid.  Do a better job 
at picking out your role models, or confine your role models to specifics 
(i.e. model your rebounding after Dennis Rodman, but perhaps his personal 
lifestyle is not your cup of tea.)

> Your statement about garbage collectors etc... deserving more then CEO's 
> or
> others that "earn" more then they do shows your very confused about
> "choice".  No one forced anyone to take a specific job.  Job choice is a
> choice.  If I choose to be an educator then that means that I also know 
> what
> the pay scale is and I accept that. (I am not a paid educator, btw.) This 
> is
> the same with all jobs.  If you don't like the pay, change jobs.  If you
> need a different skill set to get the job you want, then go and get it.  
> If
> you can't develop the skill set you want for some reason then choose
> something else.  I still can't dunk or grow to 7'.  Guess I won't be a
> center in the NBA.  Better choose a different job.

People are economically forced to take certain *types* of jobs all the 
time.  Or perhaps their lack of education and/or skills force them to take 
jobs, like janitor, garbage collector, etc. that they wouldn't prefer.  So,
  it's a choice, but if you believe that choices are always totally and 
completely free of outside influences, then you are the one who is 
confused.  And my point wasn't about choice, either: it merely suggested 
that if pay was representative of the usefulness of the job to society, 
infrastructure jobs, like garbage collecting, would be high-paying.  The 
same as educators.  We *say* education is "the most important thing" but 
we pay educators less than politicians and athletes, and most other jobs.  
If there were no leasing company jobs, for example, this affects me only 
in an indirect way.  If there were no garbage collection, we're all in for 
a tough time.

Your charge that I haven't read your post (or my own) is a hoot, as, from 
my perspective, it is, in fact *you* who clearly do not see.

> But to go back to basketball and Shaq.  If he wants to stop the 
> hack-a-Shaq
> then he needs to at least try and learn how to shoot FT's.  If he doesn't,
> then hack-a-Shaq will continue and he'll have to live with the results.
> It's his choice. I'd take him on my team, but I'd still try to get him to
> work on his FT's.

No you wouldn't.  You'd embarrass him until he changed.  Or try to.  Good 
luck with all that, as they say.  And, again, I've never read anything 
that suggested that Shaq has never worked on his free throws -- the exact 
opposite, in fact.  Not that I mind.  Everyone's got to have a weakness.  
Apparently one of yours is a willingness to embarrass people in order to 
get what you want from them.  Many people wouldn't respond very well to 
that.

I get the feeling it's all very cut-and-dried with you: it's all about 
"choice" and "accountability" and other buzzwords that people throw around 
nowadays, and some set rules that you think everybody ought to live by.  
Hey, guess what?  Life's a bit more complicated than that, even if you're 
not willing to admit it.  (And, before you say it, just because I think 
you throw the words around like buzzwords with no real meaning doesn't 
mean I don't think people make choices, or that no one ought to held 
accountable for anything.  It's about levels of accountability.  You know,
  like degrees -- like shades of gray between your "undisputed truism" of a 
black-and-white world.

Bird

P.S. Other than your insinuations, this has been a pleasant conversation.  
Though that's a bit like saying the fall was nice, except for the impact.  
So thanks for that ... for what's worth, anyway.