I'm Jackson Boake—a 20-year-old Demon Deacon out of San Francisco, California looking to carve out a career in the NBA someday. My aspirations are rooted in a lifelong passion for all things basketball: its complexities, polarizing narratives, financial quandaries, on-court strategic variables, etc. As I search for my niche in the league, I'm honing a versatile set of technical skills and understandings suited for success in various settings.

 

I'll link some of my extracurricular work on the sidebar, but in summary, I've fused graphic design with analytical writing as a basketball analyst on Instagram; worked with a student-led executive team to coordinate the school-sports interconnection at Wake Forest; signed on as an independent journalist with a growing sports media platform; and recently, I've divulged in a number of career-related programs, such as an intricate Sports Management summer course through Wake Forest and a career conference synchronized with the NBA Summer League in Las Vegas.

​

But I'm particularly psyched about this website: a personal passion project and means for creativity in dissecting the multifaceted basketball world. There's so much I'm excited to cover—draft scouting, CBA stipulations, transactions, gameplans, analytics, etc.—and here, I'm blessed with the freedom to optimize for navigability and interactivity in my presentation. 

​

​

 

My name is Jackson Boake, and I love all things basketball; its layers, complexities, intricate strategic variables, polarizing narratives, jarring toxicity, etc.

​

Everything.

​

But there are also characteristics of contemporary basketball discourse that fester me. Charisma and extravagance, often precursors to click-bait culture and laziness, supersede nuance and insight on mainstream platforms. Don't get me wrong: I indulge in it all and appreciate the place that manufactured dramatics have in our beloved game. They stimulate the collective yearning for excitement by amplifying the noise behind each individual game, quarter, possession, and shot.

​

Basketball is a microcosm of all other defined interests mired in passion and contentiousness. There are a myriad of approaches to cultivating a personal platform, all of which involve intentionality in tapping into like-minded curiosities to maximize engagement. In the relentless pursuit of garnering an audience, is all publicity good publicity? I understand the merit of capturing headlines by all means necessary. But frankly, I'm not in the business of churning hot takes.

​

My objective? Facilitating meaningful dialogue rooted in educated basketball inquiry that embraces the sport's inherently polarizing nature without straying from authenticity. Word vomit, apologies. I strive to achieve a uniqueness in my work that blends navigability with sophistication; whimsicality with decorum; credibility with skepticism. 

​

The NBA is incredibly multifaceted. The on-court play is a convergence of so much that goes behind the scenes, some of which is publicized, and some of which is inferred. My hope with this page is to share my love for all of it—draft scouting, financial quandaries, organizational power grappling, etc.—by synthesizing the fruits of my informational deep dives in fun, digestible forms.

 

​

I've broken down my sports-talk methodology below:

 

​

1. Nobody sucks.

 

My biggest pet peeve from talking heads nowadays? Negativity. I will admit that I do suffer from this in my ventures as a diehard, sometimes (often) overly obsessive Celtics fan. As an analyst, I try to frame my thoughts in a positive light. Everyone in the NBA made it for a reason. Heck, there are like 40 prospects I'd love to project as lottery picks in my Draft Journal. Acknowledging the faults of a player or team is totally fair game, but I'd rather discuss potential adjustments than hurl disparaging remarks.

 

There are media personalities whose sentiments emanate their passion and appreciation for basketball. Those are my preferred listens.

​

2. Always ask why​

​

Some happenings can be boiled down to a simple explanation, while others require more layered reasoning. Regardless, it's always important to look beneath the surface for the "why." 

 

The Charlotte Hornets led the league in '23-24 with 29 GP shooting sub-30% from three-point range, but the process behind each of such games varies. On December 31st, the Hornets lost by 53 points to the Philadelphia 76ers. Tracking stats at NBA.com show that the teams actually adhered to proportionate volumes in contested FGA (27 for PHI, 30 for CHA) and uncontested FGA (61 vs. 61), as well as 2PA (57 vs. 56) and 3PA (31 vs. 35). The difference? Philadelphia slashed for 60%/45%/88% splits while Charlotte slashed for 36%/20%/82%. While the Hornets roughly matched the 76ers' shot diet, unfavorable shooting variance and the massive talent discrepancy hit them like a Randy Johnson fastball. 

​

Blowout losses aren't always derived from one team "wanting it more." Randomness, variability, and parity are all factors that contribute to the unpredictable nature of basketball. Sometimes, one team enters a game more prepared schematically. Others, maybe one team does want it more!

​

My point? The inconquerable question of why a certain game played out as it did is a lot of fun to solve, regardless of how straightforward, sophisticated, or nonexistent the answer may be.