Thursday, August 13th, 2009...8:04 am
The Embrace of Limitation
The always provocative Wendell Berry is good at digging for disease, never becoming arrested at the surface, staring at symptoms. He wants to get beneath all that. In a thoughtful Harper’s piece dated May, 2008 -Faustian Economics: Hell Hath No Limits-Berry takes on the disease of limitlessness. Early last year, Berry was responding to the now-realized collapse of American livelihood, which he sees bound up in a deeper question than the headline externals of economy, ecology, and community. Berry writes:
…our human and earthly limits, properly understood, are not confinements but rather inducements to formal elaboration and elegance, to fullness of relationship and meaning. Perhaps our most serious cultural loss in recent centuries is the knowledge that some things, though limited, are inexhaustible. For example, an ecosystem, even that of a working forest or farm, so long as it remains ecologically intact, is inexhaustible. A small place, as I know from my own experience, can provide opportunities of work and learning, and a fund of beauty, solace, and pleasure—in addition to its difficulties—that cannot be exhausted in a lifetime or in generations.
This has brought my mind around to, of all things, the San Antonio Spurs. One of Gregg Popovich’s much utilized exhortations to his team is “get over yourself.” In some ways, the Spurs entire program is built upon the embrace of limitation. Success during the upcoming campaign will force the Spurs to fall back on what they already know is true: there is a goodness in accepting limitations. Ironically, this comes at a moment in the team’s history when Peter Holt has trangressed the team’s typically cap-conscious managing philosophy. And it comes at a moment when Tim Duncan is flanked by more talent than he’s known at any point in his career.
But don’t get distracted by all that. Or, put differently, let’s hope that the Spurs aren’t distracted by it. The team’s future success hinges on a few things breaking the right way, such as health. A willingness to embrace limitation is right at top of their list of indispensables.
Of course, this isn’t profound. Not at all. This is something every thinking basketball fan understands, and it’s something the Spurs have exhibited throughout the Popovich era.
In a recent comment thread, 48MoH reader Robby makes Wendell Berry’s point in this way:
Good luck Fabby! one of my favorite Spurs… knows his skill limitations, is a banger and has a high basketball IQ. Wizards are lucky to have him.
Robby was doing little more than offering a final adieu and word of praise for recently traded Spur Fabricio Oberto. And as Robby, and everyone who watches basketball knows, Fabricio Oberto is only effective so far as he “knows his skill limitations.”
You’ve probably read about Gregg Popovich’s prized comic strip. The one he keeps framed on his desk. Adrian Wojnarowski rehearses it for us:
There’s a superstar player sitting behind the big desk, and a sad-sack coach waiting for an appointment to meet with him.
“The franchise will see you now, Coach,” the secretary says in the caption.
Oh, how Popovich’s eyes glistened when he was showing it off, how one of the greatest coaches in the history of basketball understands about the reality of the genius assigned to him.
“That’s how we work around here, if anybody wants to know the truth,” he said.
Gregg Popovich is a tremendous success, but he’s the first to say his contribution to the team is greatly exceeded by the contribution of a random lottery. The Spurs lucked themselves into Tim Duncan. All the honest people of San Antonio know that that single accomplishment outshines the organization’s collective effort. Tim Duncan is the reason the Spurs have won 4 championships. Not Gregg Popovich. At least that’s what the coach would tell you.
But by limiting his ego, by holding that ugly monster in check, Gregg Popovich creates a culture of humility that is vital to what the Spurs do. This is just another way of saying that Popovich imposes a limit on the Spurs’ self-perception.
Tim Duncan is no different. He could dominate the ball. He could go for his own numbers. But he never has. Tim Duncan is happy to lose the battle of statistical inflation to see his team succeed.
Bruce Bowen scored the ball in college; he was a scorer during his tours of Europe. Sticking to an NBA roster, however, required Bowen to pare back, to limit himself to defensive effort and corner 3s. Accepting those limits, and living within them, transformed Bowen into an all-world defender.
Look at any successful basketball program and examples of this sort of thing will announce themselves with a loud “ahem.” All of basketball is replete with examples of players and teams flourishing within proper limits.
As I said above, Wendell Berry’s observations should seem like a pedestrian truth to anyone who follows basketball. The trick, however, is letting that truth spill out in all directions. The trick is learning to embrace limitation off the court. Is Berry correct that “our most serious cultural loss in recent centuries is the knowledge that some things, though limited, are inexhaustible”?
Theologians like to tell us that when God created time and space, He pronounced them very good. That is, things such as geographical constraint, temporality and finitude are blessed. They’re Edenic. Or perhaps this is what the ecologists wants us to understand. That living rightly means stewarding rather than squandering our natural resources. And this is what disgusts us about Bernie Madoff. Weren’t tens of millions already enough? And this is what, and this is what…. Just as with our on-the-court examples, we could pile on in praise of learning to love limitations in life, as well. But that would be tiresome, and unnecessary. So far as observations go, Berry’s is simple enough. But there is something jolting in what he says.
I suspect that we’d raise much better basketball players, players who exhibited smart shot selection and greater deference to others, if they grew up believing there was an inherent goodness in limits. No one should enjoy the sight of their 10 year old killing the ball for 30 seconds at a time. No matter how flashy their handle, there is such a thing as dribbling too much. At some point they need get over themselves. And maybe that extends to mom and dad too. Or, you know, me.
37 Comments
August 13th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Nice point, hopefully people think about it.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:25 am
The Spurs culture is the best there is
August 13th, 2009 at 8:31 am
I do take your point, but there’s a fine line here. Imagine if MJ had embraced his “limits” after being cut from the team in high school. And, to focus on the 10 year old example — what if our young players embrace their defensive limitations, as opposed to taking those limitations head on and forcing themselves to play better defense? Becoming stronger, faster, or better at anything occurs when one PUSHES one’s limits. And therein lies the true paradox — you’ve got to push your limits in order to develop skills but embrace your limits in order to get the most out of your skill set as it exists at any one moment in time…
August 13th, 2009 at 8:41 am
TrueFan,
You’re correct.
Just after I put the post up I thought, “If I were pressing this point at one the country’s rowdy health care town halls, the folks one each side of the street would agree in principle.” That is, those on the left would say, “yes, yes, and that means we should limit our total take home pay in exchange for a universal health care system.” Those on the right would throw back a stern “Tsk, tsk. We should learn to live without health care, and the government to boot.”
So the difficulty with these sort of principles is application. Nevertheless…
August 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I play alot of pickup games and i also play intramural ball at my incredibly tiny oklahoma christian school. I am by no means a superstar. I have trouble dribbling in crowds, i’m not very quick or athletic. I’m 6′ 210 and dont have a gorilla wingspan. But every game i play in i make a positive contribution by not forcing plays. I shoot when i’ve got a good shot, but i’d much rather make an assist or a pass that leads to an assist. Last intramural season, i averaged around 3 steals and 4 rebounds a game. I can honestly say that if everyone had embraced their limitations on my team, we would have won. But there were a few other guys who tried to overdribble and overshoot. Accepting what your role is something that i preach to every younger kid i have ever played with. I played JV ball in high school, and was basically on the team because i could defend the 2, 3, and 4 positions. Basically, the point i’d like to echo is do what you can to help the team, not what you cant.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am
[...] View original post here: The Embrace of Limitation [...]
August 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am
@ TrueFan
MJ would have kept playing purely because of the fact that he knew his limits were much greater, it wasn’t until he attempted to become a major league baseball star that he realized his limits.
I think it’s easy to confuse “not pushing” your limits with “knowing what your limits are.” MJ knew his limits were boundless, and thus overcame being cut from his high school basketball team.
Perhaps you should read the article and again, because I’m sure you will find between the lines the age old edict of “know thy self,” a philosophy coach Popovich has been so apt at adapting.
I applaud the author for writing a very thoughtful article, this piece would easily die in mainstream media outlets. Some things are just too high brow for people to understand, but that is the beauty of Popovich’s philosophy. There is no overarching metaphysical implications to not accepting more than yourself.
This is why I am a Spurs fan!
thanks!!!
August 13th, 2009 at 11:05 am
*cough* Ron Artest *cough*
August 13th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
How do you explain Ginobli and Parker? Especially Parker.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Ginobili is an obvious example, accepting 6th man minutes and all.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I totally agree, I’ve thought this about the Spurs for a while. I’m a Mavs fan even but over the years the Spurs have gone from hated rival to 2nd favorite team because of how smart they play. When a guy like Michael Finley gets an offensive rebound he doesn’t chuck it up right away, or if he’s 1 on 2 in a fast break he won’t force the layup he’ll pull back and give the ball to Tony to set up the offense. That’s the difference between the good teams and the bad teams, players knowing their role (especially the non-stars).
August 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I think the “The Embrace of Limitation” thing seperates the Spurs from most (if not all) organizations in the NBA.
Partly, it maybe a reason why they are called “boring”. When you watch the Spurs, its all about players accepting their role and with first team approach mentality. Duncan, Ginobili and Parker might standout from time to time… But if you watch closely they take turns on any given night (or even within the game). That to me is more exciting and amazing to watch,
This team use their heads when playing rather than solely relying to their skills and athletic ability making them harder to beat…
And that boring thing? people that say this about the Spurs are either jealous or just sick and tired watching them win consistently….
August 13th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Thanks Tim…
August 13th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I think Tim’s saying something here that transcends the usual binary of team play vs. individual creativity & talent. It’s a very fine line between exploring the potential of an agreed-upon framework and simply “accepting your limits” in the sense that everyone should subordinate their unique talents to the greater good/run the plays by rote til they work. In that system, ideally the decisions have all been made for you. I think both conceptions can complement one another too, really.
I think Tony Parker’s development applies to the first case. Sure, the Spurs drafted him for his basketball skills and IQ, but also because he had raw speed. Ideally, Pop wanted a point guard with good passing skills, great defense, quickness in transition and a decent shot. Basically, Jason Kidd. As Tony’s role developed, he tried to be that pg. But more importantly, he saw unforeseen opportunities within the system to use his speed (not just in transition), and he exploited them. He recognized that he occasionally had the one-on-one advantage, created strictly because defenses had to worry about a well-run team offense.
In the latter sense, you have Bruce Bowen, whose offensive NBA skills were extremely limited - he could shoot corner 3s, that’s all. He was on the floor for his defense, of course, but he still managed to contribute even though his game was so incredibly one-dimensional. His job was simply to try to get open in the corner, and he did it well enough to help us win some games.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Great article Tim. You’ve been very busy lately, thanks for all the updates. I was starting to get a little antsy.
The humility of the Spurs organization is a breath of fresh air and why I am such a die-hard fan. I do hesitate to say we are so unique in this sense. However, I do think it is rare to have the most important and visible faces of the organization (Duncan, Popovich, Buford) be so humble. Consider that we are witnessing one of the all-time greats play the game with seemingly no ego (which is why I consider Duncan to be personal role-model).
Upon reading this article, I immediately think of two players I spent a lot of time watching in Houston: Shane Battier and recently, Ron Artest. Both very talented players who are great defenders with good 3-point shots. Ron Artest is undeniably the better and more versatile talent. However (as pointed out in an earlier comment), his inability to accept his limitations and stick to his role hurt the Rockets just as much as he helped them. Battier, like the best role players, understands he best helps his team by playing within himself.
One player I sometimes wonder about is Tony Parker. Some comments he has made (especially to French press, which to be fair are translated and may lose the original tone) suggest he has an overly high opinion of his basketball skills. I wonder how this might affect his play in a few years when neither Duncan or Popovich are around
That said, nothing about Parker’s play suggests that he does not accept his limitations. He absolutely plays within himself; as BB writes, he plays to his strengths instead of trying to do everything. The fact that there is little question that Ginobili, a “bench” player will handle the ball during the last crucial possessions also tells me that Parker keeps his ego in check. Just curious what others think of Parker.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Of all the Spurs stars, i personally think Parker loves the limelight more than Manu and TD (see Eva longoria)… As a player, he accepts his role and do what is asked to do…
Sometimes i read some Spurs fan showing some ‘hate’ on Tony specialy if the team loses and he takes alot of shots rather than making an assist.
But still Tony plays within his strenghs (mainly his speed). and
rocko.texas wrote this:
” The fact that there is little question that Ginobili, a ‘bench’ player will handle the ball during the last crucial possessions also tells me that Parker keeps his ego in check. Just curious what others think of Parker.”
This only shows that not only Parker knows his ‘limitations’ he also knows when to give way (same goes with TD and Manu)… That is just the Spurs’ Way, a beautiful way of playing basketball…
August 13th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Here is a Tony Parker bio if you guys are interested.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
For all the Spurs fans out there Here is another article that you might want to read…
August 14th, 2009 at 1:47 am
I am happy to see some more articles about TD… honestly, why is it that others are making the news, when no one talks much about the corner stone? I know TD doesn’t try to draw attention to himself, but if he is the window of championship, shouldn’t most if not all of the analysis be viewed on how it would work with TD?
… and it is a wonder how non Spurs fan view the GPfOAT.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:19 am
I know the Spurs undoubtedly wouldn’t have won 4 rings without Tim Duncan but they could have had one or none with Tim Duncan but with another coach and culture in place.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Interesting thoughts. But I think that this discussion is not so much following Berry’s words as much as Socrates, who said “The unexamined life is not worth living” and whose ultimate command to his students was simply “Know thyself.”
They certainly explain Pop, who is unusually self-effacing, and the Spurs teams of the last decade. The awareness of both limitations and strengths is a big part of why they have been so effective, IMHO. And as for Jordan, unlike his high school coach, he knew what a fire he had and that he was capable of much more than he had shown, which is why he didn’t quit. The same was true of Larry Bird, by the way, whose college career didn’t exactly follow the expected plan.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:03 am
@TrueFan I think there is a big difference between acknowledging your limitations and playing within them, and accepting your limitations.
In the case of MJ, he had limitations at the time, but he acknowledged them and went to work to change them. That’s a key thing here. I don’t think that Pop wants people to simply accept their limitations and avoid them. Otherwise, why hire Chip Engelland to help Tony rework his jumpshot?
I think the overall philosophy is to realize where your limitations are, and which of those you can improve with time and effort. Put in the work to expand those limitations, and you’ve become a more valuable player. Roles can be redefined as skillsets are refined.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:03 am
SPURS are dreaming of next year already …. please LALAKERS will make that dream for you guys instead.
GO LALAKERS!!!
August 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Some of you may dispute this, but lots of people smarter than you or I claim this to be true:
Focus 80% of your effort on the things you do well and 20% on the areas you have problems and your path to success will be much smoother than if you flip those numbers.
August 14th, 2009 at 9:58 am
@Rick I like what you said and how you said it — I agree completely.
Others (not Rick) have countered my MJ example by suggesting that he KNEW in high school how great he would ultimately become. That’s preposterous. I can go down to any pick up game in the country and find a plethora of young guns who are convinced in their respective heads that they are good enough to make the NBA, be a Hall of Famer, and maybe even be better than MJ by the end of it. 99.9% of those guys won’t even play semi-professionally, let alone professionally.
My point here is that a player’s subjective perception (or “knowledge”) of his limits often doesn’t comport with an objective assessment of his limits. I’m reminded of an image I saw one time of a regular house kitten staring into a mirror — the reflection he saw in the mirror was that of a lion! Similarly, a lot of these players are simply in denial about what their limitations really are. And that makes the notion of “playing” within those limits — let alone “embracing” them — a complete anathema to so many players. Although this point is implicit in Tim’s post, I felt like stating it explicitly.
It’s that much more of a credit to the Spurs players’ personalities and to Pop’s coaching style that he’s able to get the players to truly understand what their limits are (to see in the mirror what the rest of the world sees), work to expand those limits as much as possible, and yet embrace those limits when it’s crunch time.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:10 am
In case Tim in Surrey reads my above comment, I just want to add that I do not find his take on the MJ situation to be “preposterous.” What I am claiming is preposterous is any idea that MJ knew (in high school, no less) that his limits were “boundless.”
August 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
[...] tell if this one is as good as it seems. So I’m gonna read it again in a week. It weaves Wendell Berry, Greg Popovich and theology. So…it’s pretty much the perfect link for a blog by [...]
August 14th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
well explained rick…
August 14th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Just have to add as far as embracing limitations for the Teams benefit, Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili stands out….
TD for being so selfless (to the point its almost a sin, I remember Pop used to say that alot about him). Even if he can dominate, he allows TP and Manu evolve in the Spurs System… perfect example would be 2005 and 2007 championships…
particularly in ‘o7 one scout who was watching the Spurs practice shakes he’s head in awe… and said this “Its unbelievable, Tim is the greatest big man in this league and yet he lets the offense go thru Tony or Manu”
In Manu’s case, he can easily be a starter for any other team but he accepts his 6th man role with the Spurs ’nuff said.
August 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Some true insight from both Berry and Timothy. Excellent.
I am an ecologist and sustainability expert by training, and a teacher, and a fundamental understanding of LIMITS is sadly lacking from the modern world. Free market economics, sadly the dominant cultural idea in the world today, is predicated on the idea of infinite economic growth, an obvious fallacy on a finite planet.
I had not previously linked the idea of limits to what I love about the way the Spurs play ‘ball, but you are spot on - it’s all about team, which means understanding and accepting your own limits as a player and accentuating your positives. That’s what I always tell young ‘ballas who ask me how to improve their game - do lots of the things you do well, and do them superbly, and no-one can ask any more of you.
August 14th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
He’s not really a 6th man, properly speaking.
August 15th, 2009 at 3:53 am
* i meant off the bench role so to speak. Cheers!
August 15th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Ruffy,
Drop me an email.
timothyvarner [at] gmail dot com.
August 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am
“Free market economics, sadly the dominant cultural idea in the world today, is predicated on the idea of infinite economic growth, an obvious fallacy on a finite planet. ”
I would have to respectfully disagree with this statement. Free market economics allow people to change their behaviors with respect to scarce resources. In the late 1700s Thomas Malthus thought there would be a large food crisis as population grew faster than the supply of food, but new innovations, created by the market led to new improvements that altered food production in unimaginable ways. I think the number of players that are involved in something as simple as a grocery store is a perfect example. Everyone takes for granted how our food gets there from different countries, different producers, etc, but it all happens without the help of a central planner.
That’s not to say humans are unncessarily wasteful; I think that’s a large problem, but rationing is not the answer.
Transitioning to basketball, I don’t see Spurs’ system based on limits but, rather, markets. I think Spurs basketball is based more on specialization and the division of labor rather than limits and these players are accomplishing tasks and the lowest costs. It’s a system that allowed Bruce Bowen to specialize in defense.
Back to limits: There is an inherent goodness in limits, as you suggested, but that goodness comes mostly from private property rights. It motivates people to conserve for the future. If you look at a lot of the world’s problems, many can be boiled down to poorly defined property rights.
Apologize for the long rant.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
NL,
In basketball terms, i agree with you on this…
“I think Spurs basketball is based more on specialization and the division of labor and these players are accomplishing tasks and the lowest costs. It’s a system that allowed Bruce Bowen to specialize in defense.” (if you noticed, I erased the words ‘rather than limits’ on purpose).
Because I think it’s all about knowing and accepting your role and doing the best at it not only for yourself individualy but also for the benefit of a greater whole… (the Team).
In this article, ‘limits’ is pointed out in baskeball sense this way…
“But by limiting his ego, by holding that ugly monster in check, Gregg Popovich creates a culture of humility that is vital to what the Spurs do. This is just another way of saying that Popovich imposes a limit on the Spurs’ self-perception.
Tim Duncan is no different. He could dominate the ball. He could go for his own numbers. But he never has. Tim Duncan is happy to lose the battle of statistical inflation to see his team succeed.”
It only shows that, for a Team to totally succeed, sometimes you need to sacrifice and accept limits if in the long run it will be of great benefit.
It is also one of the reasons why the Spurs are who they are now. A model organization with lots of high character guys and class acts on and off the court…
Cheers! Go! Spurs Go!
August 19th, 2009 at 12:20 am
hi
i really believe that the spurs team is a team of gentlemen, who plays the game with a lot of heart but mind you they carry the hack saw behind their back to cut down their opponents - well in a legal basketball way.
they are a good good team
they are a no drama team
and they deserve to be champions
it could have 6 or seven championship by now if not for that .4 second shot, the manu foul on dirk, the no call on brent barry and the ginobili ankle issue.
but anyways it is going to be excited in the next few years if tiago splitter will join the team, ginobili will stick around be healthy and this years rookis will develop nicely which i am sure they will under coach pop. a side note to this, just imagine if ring hungry lebron james come knocking at the spurs front office - that would be a hell of a lot of talent there.
now you will have
tim
manu
tony
lebron
richard
mason
mahinmi
blair
hill
this is near all star team. a good 6-8 seasons down the road. you are now thinking of maybe 6-8 rings. wow.
sweet and nice
August 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Vince,
As great as Lebron is… I think his personality doesn’t fit the Spurs. And him trying to get to San Antonio is along shot. (because we are a small market team). He might choose to stay in Cleveland or maybe elsewhere to L.A. or New York…
Having said that I also love him to be in our team in future (if it happens…) if only he can be a high character guy, because right now no matter how popular he is, I don’t think he is that kind of person yet…
Leave a Reply