Sports: Why Narrative Matters

Over the course of this season and especially during the finals and now, their aftermath, we've been hearing quite a bit about the compelling narrative of the good vs. evil finals, the counternarrative to that, and criticism of the overly simplistic nature and irrationality of narratives.  It seems like a good time to examine the prevalence of narratives in sports.

When John Krolik of Cavs: the Blog writes: "The thing about sports is that they are not a story: they’re what happens when the best athletes in the world compete with a common goal in mind," he is, in a rational sense, completely correct.  The games are not rigged.  The season is not planned out by Disney or Vince McMahon.  This is a huge part of why we watch sports.  We never know what will happen.  There's always the possibility of a 2004 NBA finals or 2008 Super Bowl.

Of course, for this same reason, the idea of narratives in sports is rather silly.  Someone gets dubbed a hero or a choker based on one shot at the end of a game that he usually makes 40% of the time.  Or maybe if his team wins, he played with "heart" and "determination" and "willed them to victory" despite shooting 25% from the field while jacking up bad shot after bad shot.  We generally make up the narrative that makes sense after it is all said and done, even if it isn't true.  We just forget the stuff that doesn't line up with the story.


Analysts and statisticians object that these simplified stories impede our understanding of the game-Team X won because of it's rotation optimization and defensive scheme, not because they starred carried his teammates on his back by scoring 35.  It can be unfair to great players who have to live with an asterisk next to their career simply because they had the never won a championship, often because of bad luck or because their teammates weren't that good.  We should appreciate the skill and purity of the game.  Yet despite these faults, I think these narratives are the lifeblood of sports.


I think that an important part of the identity of the sports fan is often overlooked in these discussions about narrative vs. purity of the game.  Namely, we fans don't have as good an understanding of what we are watching as many seem to think.  I am probably in the top 10% of basketball fans with regard to the amount of time I spend watching, playing, analyzing, and reading about basketball, and I freely admit that when watching a game in real time, I am rarely able to see everything that is happening at once.  I can't figure out the close fouls or block/charge calls without the super slo-mo HD replay.


This problem is especially present in basketball.  The combination of the complexity of 10 players moving on the floor at once and the frenetic pace of the game make it difficult for the fan to analyze in the game.  In football, the 40 dead seconds between plays allows for multiple replays and explanatory commentary.  In tennis, it's just two guys.  In basketball, it's easy to watch someone like LeBron throw down a dunk in traffic and think to yourself "this guy is 6'8'' and 230lbs with explosive leaping ability; why doesn't he just attack the basket and do that every play?" without seeing the the availability of the driving lanes and lurking help defenders in the same way that LeBron does.  For many fans, "the purity of game" is a bit too close to watching a bunch of guys running around a jumping really high, and occasionally, one of them jumping really high and dunking or something.  Sure, it's impressive athletically, but without a good way to frame the purposes and reasons behind the actions happening on court, it is a lot less compelling.


This is why narratives are so important.  Absent massive technical knowledge and analysis, they give fans a reason to watch, a context in which to frame the action, and ultimately, an explanation for the outcome.  In the battle of the AAU All-Stars vs. the veteran teammates, unselfish play won out.  Dirk closed in the 4th because he learned from his defeat and became tougher while LeBron wilted because he couldn't handle the pressure.  Whether or not these things are true, they give the fan a means of which to make sense of the often confusing on-court action.


Even the misguided narratives can serve as an opportunity to deepen our love and understanding of the game. The debates that arise from them often lead to edification for fans.  It was through the LeBron vs. Kobe debate that I first got involved with and eventually came to understand many of the advanced statistics available in basketball.  And Abbott's writings on what is now called "heroball" have helped me view the late game in a new light.  I went in compelled by the stories and came out a more knowledgeable fan.


Dig even deeper than story lines about individual players and games and it is inescapable that narrative plays a central role in the team-fan relationship.  On a rational level, why should I care about a bunch of guys getting paid millions to play a game just because they happen to be located near me? Even if I enjoy watching their skills in action, why should I care if they win or lose to another bunch of similar guys from another city?  It's completely irrational.  Except that, through the power of narrative, that bunch of guys on the court comes to represent that city, and by extension, its citizens.  As someone who calls Cleveland home, the city is a part of who I am and because of that, the Cavaliers, in some small way, represent me.


It is through this power of narrative that sports can become magical.  Sports can make you too excited to sleep.  Sports can make you feel like you just got kicked in the gut.  Sports can bring all sorts of people together to share in exuberance and anguish.  And without narrative, I don't think these things are fully possible.  Without narrative, the excitement, the bonds, and the passion all flicker.  So I am not ashamed to say it: however crazy it sometimes gets, long live sports narrative!