Hehehe.
I'm 6'2, 135. I did indeed take a BA in PoliSci, and I do work for the fire department here in Alberta. I have indeed been watching ball since before I learned how to read, thanks to my grandfather. I loved sharing sports with him. College ball, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, the whole thing, it was amazing. Heck, I even watched football with him, and I'm not really a big fan of the sport. It was pretty amazing, finding something like that to share. Well, that and card games.
I haven't played ball in a while, but I was reasonably competitive in university at an extramural level, better as a coach than a player. I'm skinny as all get out, but I can move without the ball, pass really well and my post tricks screw everyone over because no one has any defensive discipline and I get all McHale/Olajuwon on people. Once they figure out they need to stay on the ground, I just go Old Man on them and skyhook until they scream. Heaven forbid I get shoved out past 15 feet, though, then I can only make baseline skyhooks or turnaround bank shots unless I catch a hot streak on my J. My handles are nothing to write home about and my base SUCKS, so I rely on just-in-time positioning, mismatches and PnRs to get post position. I drive pretty well and I make people remember Iceman with my finger rolls. I can still dunk, though nothing pretty. When I'm in shape and full of adrenaline, I can go for a two-hander, but mostly it's the same plain-looking one-hander.
Think of me as Mike Dunleavy Jr with a post game and a tad less range, scaled to my level and size.
I coached in university a bit, but mostly extramural (e.g. not OFSAA) and developmental (all over the 8-18 range). Evidently, "those who can't, teach" really applies to me with this sport, lol. I do pretty well as a post instructor, as well as for defense, and I can teach the triangle, because I've spent forever and a day studying it. I'm a big fan of Phil's game philosophy (and by extension, Holzman's), and I like to study various offenses, even going back to older stuff from the 60s, the stuff that forms the rudiments of modern offenses. Wooden-era UCLA offense still has applicable sets that are worked into modern offenses, and the same is true of various things. Step forward a bit, and then there's Coach K and various other college coaches... and then the work of folks like Riles, Pops, Thibs, etc, etc. Lots of fun.
What else... Yeah, I'm on the FD out here, studying for higher-level EMT work. I do various internet things on the side and am taking a medical transcription program at the moment to supplement, and I'm working on the world's slowest path to a psych degree as I get more and more involved in crisis negotiations. I'm still flirting with the idea of going RCMP, but for now, I'm focusing on medical because it's what I know and it's what I'm good at. The fire department also does like 85% medical stuff anyway, so I'm keeping well-practiced!
Basically, I'm never still, heh. And that's me! I wish I had more of the math side of things to my benefit, but I've never really believed in single-metric analysis anyway. I prefer collecting a broad selection of information and examining things from all angles. RAPM and the like are interesting, but very limited in my experience, and I think such stats are the product of a poor angle of evaluation much of the time. Distilling players to single numbers, especially based on box score stats, is not a great way to go. I love seeing the in-out splits, I like seeing these big-sample number crunches, but at the end of the day, I think there are a fairly large number of simple and basic data points which combine well with video analysis and comprise a far more rigorous and accurate evaluation of a player than we'll ever get from even the most advanced single-metric stats. Big proponent of context and going both a mile wide and a mile deep, heh.