APBRmetrics

When it comes to "metaphysics", only direct connection that comes to mind is trying to figure out what exactly makes a player have great anticipation/feel/etc. The rest seems closer to regular physics to me because of how tangible is either visibly or statistically, so I don't love the term metaphysics for basketball

Basketball writers who's output I would consider "philosophy inclined"

Me (asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com) - my site's tagline has been "Basketball Philosophy" for some time actually
Jonathan Tjarks (RealGM, SB Nation, patternofbasketball.blogspot.ca)
David Locke (Utah Jazz play by play guy, has a podcast Locked On Jazz)
Boxscoregeeks guys + Dave Berri (some philosophy of course, can be heavily disagreed with)
Obviously anything NBA related Klosterman has ever written. Sometimes Simmons. Chad Ford actually, even though I usually disagree with the conclusions he makes, kind of writes/does podcasts in a philosophically-spoken way

By philosophy inclined I don't mean quoting Kant articles in their posts or anything if that's what you're looking for, but the tendency to build arguments and conclusions and search for ways to see new angles in the game others are missing and to try to connect it to a bigger picture/way to grasp the sport. The people on the above list are basically gigantic hedgehogs. Interestingly, the most popular NBA writer Zach Lowe, is like the biggest fox I've ever seen in basketball or otherwise (Nate Silver isn't the biggest fox because ironically, his obsession with the fox over hedgehog concept and "better" journalism/data reporting, might make him a hedgehog)

I am not wedded to using the term metaphysics as best or sufficient but it was a quick way to move to a different place / perspective. Philosophy as a substitute would allow philosophy of self, mind, ethics, epistemology, language, logic, aesthetics, war, etc.

I'll have to read, re-read more of your work to see where you've gone.

Well for me philosophical refers to type of argument, if you're looking for the subjects you listed, not sure there's an immediate answer. Gothic Ginobili has a very well read and literary type of style to some of its articles and while I didn't really catch it while still writing regularly, Free Darko's articles are still on the net I believe (and has a book)

I figured the 'beyond physics' view was that it's more efficient for a player to know what works, than it is to know why it works. We non-practitioners can dabble in the math and physics and speculate; but unless we own a team, we don't really have full-blown experiments at our disposal.

You can get into investigating whether it's a real effect when a probability is enhanced by believing that you can do it. It's easy enough to argue that your chances of success are reduced when you lack the confidence.

In a team sport, there's the combined belief that sustains the individual through a down moment. Humility is not a weakness, and it's not the same as humiliation. It means sacrificing personal glory for the greater good of the community.

On the fast break, you may 'know' your teammate is going to take a certain lane, and when you deliver the ball, there he is. You don't have the luxury of explaining how you knew -- you just get back on defense.

Beyond all this, what accounts for individual differences in motivation? A few players seem to be 100% motivated, 100% of the time. Others are 50/50.

One of the newest concepts I've come across is "ignorant knowledge", where a person supposedly doesn't know what they think they know, according to someone's judgment or true knowledge. I don't want to prattle on too much other than to say that the podcasters assert that direct communication about the ignorant knowledge usually doesn't work. They suggest trying indirect communication to help the other discover his own ability to gain the true knowledge, overcoming the ignorant knowledge. I think some practicing basketball analysts have adopted this tactic. The first public utterance of new appointee seemed to telegraph this approach in contradistinction to straight ahead claim to and promotion of knowledge. I am not sure how I feel about that totally. But something to think about. If one happens to view both traditional insiders and newcomer analyst as being affected by some level of ignorant knowledge (and simple ignorance and imperfect knowledge) and viewing the other as affected by ignorant knowledge, ignorance and / or imperfect knowledge and both sides are practicing indirect communication or little vital communication at all, then that sure seems like a quagmire not ripe for advancement. Is that a fair description of where some or even many teams are?