Chinese Basketball as Metaphor for Limits of Planning

Dan Harris at China Law Blog asks some tough questions about China's lack of a talented point guard:

Is it further evidence of the shortcomings of a planned economy? Does China pull out the great athletes for other sports, leaving only tall people for basketball?

Is it further evidence of a lack of innovation or take-chargedness (I know I am making up this word, but it works) in China? Great point guards have to be willing to innovate and take the heat. Is the coaching so tough that no player is willing to step up?

Seriously, why?

I was discussing this with some friends last night. They were telling me that at age 10 kids start to get pulled for sports like basketball. The problem is that an athletic kid with point guard style body type is typically pulled for soccer despite whatever skill and flair they show on the basketball court. "Six foot" Chris Paul might have been good at any sport, but his 5'10" frame would've relegated him to the soccer field despite his basketball genius. In American sports we don't lie about age, we just lie about height and weight. It typically starts in high school as a tool to intimidate the other teams, and continues for such reason, except maybe for college recruiting.

The planned athletic program seems to have done wonders at producing exceptional individual athletes as seen in shooting, weightlifting, and gymnastics (team gymnastics is not a team sport because it is merely the sum of individual performances). But, like in business, team sports depend less on individual prowess, and more on creativity and chemistry which is all but impossible to select for.

To address Dan's questions:
We can probably safely ignore the third question, as there is plenty of innovation in China considering the level of development the country has reached. We probably have to turn to the first question. The answer: Skills and techniques can be taught, innovation and creativity cannot. Innovation and creativity can be fostered through access to tools and instructors, but it can't be forced on anybody. Those with the greatest combination of skill and creativity will rise to the top in a free market system that rewards performance. The US system of competitive high school basketball, expensive required university attendance, and a professional system means that our basketball players need to receive approval for their skills on a wide market to make it to the next level. Creativity and not a player's physical attributes are going to mark the point guard, which can probably only reasonably be found in a large competitive market.

One further note: David Brooks' recent column on individualism v. collectivism has been getting slammed in the "blogosphere." James Fallows offers an interesting look at the column by way of the scientific Mark Liberman. Apropos to the discussion of basketball is John Pomfret's response to Mr. Brooks:

"It was part of China's assertion that development doesn't come only through Western, liberal means, but also through Eastern and collective ones," Brooks states. He then broadens this theory to say: "If Asia's success reopens the debate between individualism and collectivism (which seemed closed after the cold war), then it's unlikely that the forces of individualism will sweep the field or even gain an edge." Takeaway? China is a challenge. Not just because it's big and bad but because they think different over there and the Olympic Ceremony proves it.

I wonder if Brooks has ever seen American marching bands, or line dancing, or visited a high school where the coolest kids are always part of a group - say, the football or basketball teams. I would argue that in many way Americans bow more to the group than the Chinese, which explains why the Chinese party-state has been so intent on forcing comformity.

Even more, I wonder if Brooks has ever driven in China (look out for grandma!), or sharpened his elbows in the scrum that forms each time you try to get off an airplane, or tried to get Chinese co-workers to band together. Let's just say in the decade that I've lived in China (over the course of 30 years), I haven't seen or heard much collectivist impulse except when it was rammed down the throats of ordinary Chinese.

And...

Meyerson noted that during the parade of athletes China's flag bearer, Yao Ming, was accompanied by a 9-year-old boy who dug two classmates out of the rubble of the Sichuan earthquake. When asked by NBC why he did it, the boy said "he was a hall monitor and that it was his job to take care of his schoolmates," Meyerson wrote, adding "that answer may tell us more than we want to know."

The boy "was a responsible little part of a well-ordered hierarchy," said Meyerson.From that he concludes that the answer "works brilliantly as an advertisement for an authoritarian power bent on convincing the world that its social and political model is as benign as any democracy's."

What am I missing here? How is a sense of responsibility, instilled in any leader, no matter how small, in any society (ever hear of a class president?), taken as a sign of totalitarian brainwashing or a propaganda campaign? Don't we hear this kind of sentiment in the voices of Americans who go down into mines or back into fires to save their comrades? "I'm the fire chief, I couldn't leave my men behind." And so what if it's a 9-year-old? Bully for him. If anything, China's system discourages the type of initiative evidenced by pint-sized hero. Maybe that's the reason he was marching next to Yao.