Hoops in France, and dispelling myths.

You're right, the rules about low post play (both offense and defense) can make a profound change. Sorry to hear about your "irrational fandom boiling over." Maybe I'm just a weird fan, in that almost every sport I follow, I am more interested in watching the defenders than the offensive players. I hated Detroit and LA over Boston, but that was irrational. I secretly admired Rodman and Cooper's ability to frustrate Bird on occassion. I think the sport is better for having guys like that, and I think it is natural that not all the great defenders are great scorers...it's like that in all sports, no?

 

True, but like it or not, the offensively talented players will always be the stars. Among current players, only Ben Wallace is recognized as a star by defensive talent only. Look back in NBA history, I can only think of 2 more guys on top of my head: Russell and Rodman. And you can't deny the fact that offense is more entertaining for most people.

 

Kim, there are many parts to this argument. While it's true that sweeping statements regarding "all the NBA sucks" are not necessarily true. The main issue is our top tier players and our 2nd tier players (wanna be stars). It was those players that carried the league in the past. Today our "best" are not the "best" in terms of fundaments. They are the "best" in terms of freak-of-nature athletic ability and great one-on-one ability. But lack a lot of the team skills and shooting skills that are needed for true, efficient team play.

So, although you talk about France and how it is over there. Ok and? What's the point? The proof is in the pudding. I can see the change in the type of players we have in the NBA over the last 15 years. There has been a skills erosion due to many factors; sensationalism, naivety about what makes a complete player, lack of NCAA training, youth, players lack of priorities of learning both team and individual skills. The definition of skill (one-on-one vs team). All these things.

Also, although you will see "hip-hop clothes and gansta ballers" in France, doesn't mean they don't know the fundamentals as well; in the end, only the best of the litter get picked. But I'd say as a whole, our leading stars in the NBA are lacking in this area greatly. It doesn't mean that the NBA will shut down or not put out a product. They have to. And anyone that watches it has to eat it (force fed).

So, as you write your post, the International leagues will get better and better while we get worse (as a whole). True. We may be in a transition. And it's my opinion that the NBA WILL get better because of what's been happing in international play. But it will be the new generation that will have to make the personal choice to learn more than what our current players have NOT learned.

They will be the new generation. I mean, who knows? It might start with Melo and James. I say, start. But the next generation will have to take the lead.

 

Sure, fundamentals are still available to learn. To those that will listen and learn. But many of these star's priorities are elsewhere. And when the playing field is has been lowered (others don't learn it, so why should I?) then what do they have to loose? I mean, our best stars have been blessed with extra ordinary athletic ability... They will "beat" their man anyways. And because of that get the "big bucks." They don't have to learn the fundamentals at the same level as past players; because they don't have to.

Priorities. It's up to those individual that choose to learn it. They don't have to. At least not yet (until more and more international competition forces them to). This is about knowledge *not learned* because of choice, not because proper shooting form "doesn't work today." That's just silly.

Skipping the NCAA is part of the issue to. Ask any coach in the NBA and have them compare the training a player would get in college vs the training they would get in the NBA. It's a different animal.

 

That's only half the issue. The other issue is that players that are OPEN can't even hit there shots on a consistent basis. There are only a hand-full of players that I could name that are consistent in this area. And those players are NOT superstars. They are good players that happen to have nice shooting touch. So, as a whole, our stars are NOT good shooters, but rather good scorers (drive to the basket, one-on-one players, great athletic ability).

The other issue is using ones teammates to create opening for those shots. This is another lost skill. Our best players today don't utilize the screen or p/r as much as in the past. That's a team skills. Maybe using your teammates to create ones shot is not considered "manly" or "cool." But that's a fact. One-on-one is more in style today. This lack of utilization is a skill that goes unlearned and is not honed. Thus, we have stars that are limited in their overall knowledge of how to score/shoot/pass, etc...

Just because defense has become a trademark of today's play, doesn't mean that player shouldn't hone their shooting skill.

But, I'll play along....lets see...

Sure. It's your "ticket" into the NBA. Ok fine. But this is an errostion of overall skills. Why not learn BOTH: shooting and defense. Team play and individual play? Rely on fundamentals and rely on ones atheltic ablity?

Because they don't have to. The NBA has allowed this. And the new players are just following the rules that are placed in front of them. If you really want a "ticket" into the NBA you'd learn ALL those skills. Not just defense and dunking ablity.

But most wont go the extra mile. They don't have to.

Nope. I compare them to our best! Kobe and TMac are not complete players. They are NOT on the same level of completeness as Bird, Isiah or Jordan. No way!!!

KG and Duncan are close. Shaq is a freak-of-nature. So, you can put in another league. But all the guys you mention I do compare to the best of the past. And they don't measure up. Not Kidd, not, Vince, not Pierce...nope.

 

Yes. I agree with this.

Changing the rules of zone, or 3pt, etc...will not fix the problems. They are only futile band-aids.

Coaches will just use the "if I can't score, we wont let you score" win tactic. They are just doing whatever they can do to win; given the tools they have at their disposal.

 

This thread is too long!


LOL

 

Proper form means jack sh*t if you can't get your shot off unless wide open. Many of these "proper form" NCAA fundamental guys have a shooting form that is too slow to develop versus well-coached, intensive, NBA defense. Also, many of the "proper form" PGs and centers in college cannot make the NBA because they can't play defense.

That's why it doesn't work today vs the 70s. So, you're saying that's a "silly" observation.

Do you think it is silly for me to say defense has increased tremendously since Detroit won in the 80s...or since the 70s? When defenses increase, is it silly to say that not only with the stars have a tougher time than previous decades and have to adjust, but the role players will, too?

 

a great discussion guys, wish i had seen it earlier

heyp - love of the game or love of the NBA game

better rules... are you really serious?

no travelling, palming allowed and a rules system that is overridden by the status of the players involved in the referees decision you have got to be joking that the rule system in the NBA is better

suppose it comes back to global domination and calling sports that are primarily played in just one country the World Series or the winner of them the World Champion

must remember to start calling the Aussie Rules football team the Brisbane Lions the World Champs

 

That's right. Defense has improved. But offense (shooting and team oriented scoring) has degraded. So, you have two forces that have produced an end product: Today's NBA. That's what we have today.

Take guys like Cassell, Bibby, Stojakovic, Nash, Prince. Why are they such good shooters (w/the ball and w/out)? Are they freak of nature athletes? Are these guys MVPs? Are they at the same level as Kobe or McGrady (athletically)? Or did they just hone these type of skills better? IMO, they had to in order to survive. It's not like they have super athleitc ablity like Kobe, Vince or McGrady.

I'd say that the 2nd tier role players (even the lower ones; like Brian Cardinal, Darrick Martin, Linsey Hunter) have to work harder on team skills/fundamentals -- compared to the super stars -- to overcome their own inabilities. For example. Bibby is not the same type/level of player that Kobe and McGrady are (physically). He is not of the same speed, strength, length and athletic ability. He has to get his shot other ways. Thus, he would spend more time working on form (outside shooting; quick release, timing). Spend time working on team fundamentals; running the proper pick and roll, screens, passing (and all the technique that goes with it).

So, what we have here are "stars" that don't have to work as hard because they can rely a more on their athletic gifts. They can "coast" and get by. I'm not saying that they don't work on thsee same skills that the role players do. But they don't have to; as much. Would it be so hard for McGrady to shoot 48%? He has the speed and quickness, right? What about that shot form? What about his shooting skill? Did he spend enough time on this? What? You tell me? I mean, in the end, it's his choice if he want to work on these skills.

This should be obvious in their everyday play.

So, ok, sure crappy NCAA defenders will probably not make it to the NBA. Yeah and? Those guys will not make the NBA for more than just "bad defense." That's just an simplified example (which is technically true).

Just to make things clear. Lets be realistic. Guys like Bibby and Cassell are above average compared to your run of the mill college player. They are able to compete in the NBA because they have a decent balance between "good atheleic ablity" and "very good skills (they worked at it)" So what we call "average" may be extraordinary to the layperson or the below average NCAA player (that's the main reason those guys don't make it. Not just bad defense).

There will always be the average/good NCAA players (w/fundamentals) that can't cut it in the NBA no matter how much the work at it. So, I wasn't implying that just because someone goes to the NCAA means that they will get into the NBA. I'm not saying that. The cream of the crop will make it if those that have these abilities and work ethic (like Cassell and Bibby) chose to go that route. Others like McGrady, Kobe and Lebron don't have to.

There's a whole range of players that we'll never get to the NBA. Even though they are "great" compared to the local YMCA rat.

 

The facts are clear. I don't see how anyone can deny them. The World is beating Team USA. And Beating them soundly. At what point did we start ignoring the facts. The European players are better. They are winning on the court. It's like pretending the Lakers were better than the Pistons last year. Simply not true. The Pistons had the better players and the better team.

argument A: the rules. Please. The rules make the game fair. That's all they have ever done. Terrible excuse.

argument B: The team has not been together long enough. Detroit would win the gold. Bull****. China and Team USA are on similar ground. As is every other country. They have leagues just the same as we do. They throw together an all star team just like we do.

argument C: No shooters. Please. Give me a shooter that can make up a 20 point differential on the score board. Makes no difference. We selected the team. We are to blame. It's not a valid excuse. Maybe we just can't shoot the ball period because of the Euro D or the Euro O working are legs to death.

Public perception has not caught up with reality yet. But you are getting a dose now.

The facts are the facts. Team USA is getting manhandled.

You can pretend that the NBA /Team USA is better than the rest of the world, but it isn't true. Unless of course they do win the gold. Then I'll agree with you. But right now the facts are clear.

As a league, the best uero players will still come here to play, but that doesn't mean that across the board a European League is not equivalent or better. Man to man, a group of Euros is beating a group of nba ballers. What more evidence do we need.

.

 

one and the same.

Traveling and palming are rules in the NBA. If you want to blame it on the refs then do so. Magic and Stockton would get called for palming all the time.

Ref interpretations of low post plays seem to be as strange in international play as NBA.

The real differences are the differences in the written rules...shorter 3pt distance...the trapezoid lane, and the stupid rule to allow goaltending on balls in the cylinder. Those are differences written into the rules. The NBA rules, in that regard, are better rules, imo. That's what I meant. I do prefer the longer shot clock, though.

Everything else is interpretation. I'm not against being stricter on palming and travelling. I also think flopping should be against the rules, but imo, the main rules differences that are <b>actually written into the rules</b> are the rules that make the most difference.

You sound like The Cat talking about the Spurs vs Lakers. hehe

I'm far from being impressed by the international refs making consistent calls based on their rules system. This is a really fast game, and there is a lot of things that refs need to looks for....hands, feet for both the offensive and defensive players...plus all the little tricks. Plus while guys are leaping way into the air. I think this is the most difficult sport to ref. And the international refs seem to have similar problems with speed and leaping vs allowing flopping and other fake maneuvers.

 

written or not they are fairly standard in the NBA and certainly more than interpretation.. what are you saying NBA refs are told to follow the travelling and palming rules and then as group decide to ignore them.... so Lebron can change and move his pivot feet 3 times before he dribbles just in case he gets a highlight reel dunk

call what i was saying Cat like if you want, like i would give a crap, so what you are denying that calls aren't often based on the status the players involved??

it is one of the most unprofessional things i cannot stand about a league and sport that i love... it is a complete farse

the cylinder/goal tending rule is certainly one i agree with you on.. very weird... they have changed that a few times over the years... it flip-flops all the time

not sure why having a longer 3 pt line is better.... don't forget things like these are international and global and apply to league throughout the world, including juniors

does the lane size make that much of a difference? I'm not sure it does

shot clock is 24 in international ball now

I'ver watched a few games so far, one USA game and 3 australian games (2 men and 2 women) and haven't had a big problem with the refs calls, maybe the odd thing here and there, what do you mean by interpretation of low post play, it's obviously something i am used to.. although from the aussie game i saw it seemed like they were calling it very tight when the post player was making there move

was actually suprised they only had 2 refs, the national league here uses 3 and i though most of europe was using 3 but i could be wrong

at the end of the day not sure the referees or even interpretation or written rules are making Team USA play poorly.... they need to bring the famed NBA defensive intensity and the ability to hit the side of a barn would certainly help, some movement off the ball is too much to ask, but i would really love to watch them play when they Bring IT!!!!!

 

That's evolution. Defense is taking over versus the lack of defense we saw in the 70s.

So you are saying that Kobe and McGrady don't hone their skills, they haven't shown any improvement in their games and fadeaway jumpers, since arriving in the NBA.

I'm not sure what your point is. You're saying a team of role players that played exquisite team ball (the Pistons) embarrased a team of NBA All-Stars (the Lakers). hmm...isn't that what you're saying is happening in the Olympics, too?

I guess there are two schools of thought here. One school believes Team USA can beat the NBA Champions, and another who thinks the NBA Champions would crush Team USA. The first school of thought thinks the results of the Olympics is a measure of the entire NBA and all foundations of American bball. The other school of thought says, why don't we just leave the Pistons out of this. OK. And quit condemning the NBA and (by extension, their champion) based on the results of a team of NBA All-Stars not playing like a team.

 

Posted from above:

"So, what we have here are "stars" that don't have to work as hard because they can rely more on their athletic gifts. They can "coast" and get by. I'm not saying that they don't work on thsee same skills that the role players do. But they don't have to; as much. Would it be so hard for McGrady to shoot 48%? He has the speed and quickness, right? What about that shot form? What about his shooting skill? Did he spend enough time on this? What? You tell me? I mean, in the end, it's his choice if he wants to work on these skills."

 

I did not make that excuse for Team USA. I have made no excuse. I'm just saying I prefer the written NBA rules over the international written ruls. Don't read all your hatred for NBA refs into me saying that. I'd prefer palming and travelling called better. I'd prefer international flopping called better. But I also know that it is really hard to see a jump stop based on whether the guy stopped his dribble before he left his feet to come down legally with two feet. It is really hard to see Bird, Peja and Nowitski's step back jumpers whether they had stopped their dribble before the "step" then leaving their pivot foot to set it back down for the "jump."

It is also really hard to call charging and blocking at fast pace, especially when jumping is involved. It's hard to see little pushes in the lane. It's easy for a ref to fall for a fake flop. This is not an easy sport to ref.

I'm not all that interested in talking about how rules interpretation will change much. I'm saying that I do not like the written international rules. I hate 3ptrs. They should be far away, if they are in the rule book. Wide lanes would make it easier in the NBA to play zone. And the goaltending allowance is just plain stupid.

 

Hey, look up how many times in their careers that pure shooting 20pt scorers like Glen Rice, Allen Houston, Dirk Nowitski, Ray Allen, Sam Cassell*, Rip Hamilton and Michael Redd have shot 48%, then come back here and tell me the point that you're trying to make.

I'll make it simple. Out of those 7 players, they have combined for 4 seasons of 48% shooting, and I'm counting *all* their seasons in the league...not just their 20ppg seasons.

Also explain to me why Peja (the best pure shooter in the league) barely clears 48% in the regular season and gets shut down so badly in the Playoffs.

* actually, Cassell never scored 20ppg...but had 5 seasons over 19ppg. I chose him, because he was very close and you had him in your list.

 

PSJ -- a lot of these arguments have been addressed in this rather lengthy thread, as well as a few other forums. But anyway here's some responses:

1. Nobody disputes that these second tier all star teams plus rookies with jerseys we want to sell we are sending over are getting beaten by teams of players that are relative unknowns (and most who couldn't make an NBA roster -- I guarantee you Jose Ortiz, PR's 40 year old C who had a cup of coffee with the Jazz 14 years ago, wouldn't make it through a day of an NBA training camp)

But repeating that they beat our team over and over again doesn't really help us with what we're trying to accomplish: to explain why.

Nobody is looking for an excuse. Whether or not you consider their failures excusable or inexcusable is just a matter of personal preference and opinion.


2. As for your arguments:

This is just dead wrong. If the rules made no difference, than the College game would be a perfect mirror of the pro game, despite the fact that it has different rules (shorter time, less fouls, different bonus rules, shorter 3). But that doesn't happen. In the college game, lesser talented teams -- as in NBA type talent -- are able to exploit and use these rule differences to their advantage and are able to beat more talented teams. See Gonzaga, Loyola Marymount, etc.

Similarly, we see a difference in superstars. Look at LSU in the early 90's: They had Shaq and Chris Jackson. Chris Jackson flourished in the NCAA game, where zones and shorter three point lines favored perimeter players, he was the star of that team with Shaq, he scored 29 ppg in two years while Shaq averaged just 21 in 3 years. THen they went to the NBA. Jackson wasn't good enough, and was an average player. SHaq became Shaq.

The international game is equally as different. Shorter 3 point line and wider lane plus slightly different refereeing styles make a huge difference. the wider lane pushes the post players further out and it brings the help defenders further in, who are already standing three feet closer out on the three point line. This, like in college, cuts down on the advantage that faster, more athetic teams, like the US, would have on their slower counterparts.

Huge difference. If rules didn't make a huge difference, then, under your logic, it's inexcusable that Peja is a choker, Rasheed and Ben led the Pistons to a title instead of Darko or Mehmet, Ginobili is a role player and not an all star -- etc.


Argument B: Well, I don't think using the CNT as a countexample is that great of an idea, but anyway, the fact is that int'l players have been playing together a great deal longer, in generally the same system. How many guys on the US team have ever played in an international competition before this year? Duncan, maybe, and maybe a few guys played on Junior national teams, but that's it. Can you say the same for China, Argentina, etc? No, these guys have played in several, at many levels, in generally the same system. Hell, I remember when Puerto Rican guard Eddie Caseyano played against the Dream team in Barcelona in 1992. I'm willing to bet he's played 10 times more FIBA games than Dwayne Wade. Now you are right, It's hard to quantify the impact of that, but I don't think we can just dismiss it.

Argument C: A shooter that can make a 20 point differential on the scoreboard? The US shot 3 for 24 on Sunday. That's 12.5%. Puerto Rico was 8-16. That's 50%. If the US hits a lousy, ,by int'l standards, 9-24, or 37.5% (Richard Jeffersnon's average from NBA three point land last season), then that's 18 points right there. You don't need a guy who can hit 8 threes, you just need Iverson and Jefferson (or, more likely, Fred Hoiberg or Ray Allen, or somebody else) who can do better than a combined 1-16. Not exactly a tall order.

Anyway, that's superficial, as HP has pointed out, the problesm also have to do with defense, spacing, etc, other stuff.

3. Finally, most of your arguments are about how the Euros are better than us, well the Puerto Ricans aren't Euros. They don't have any special national basketball fundamental program that they instill in their players - I'm sure a pick up game in San Juan isn't much different from one in the Washington Heights -- and the best Puerto Rican players all end up at US colleges anyway, like Arroyo and Ortiz.

THe games are played in different styles under different rules. Before we had enough of a pure athletic advantage where we could win anyway. Now we can't. While as a fan of the US Olympic team, that sucks, but as a basketball fan, that's fine with me.

 

What? That's not the point. The issue is that those guys are way better shooters (all above 45%; shooting from outside; put aside PF/C like Cato for a second. I just used 48% as a higher standard for a guy (McGrady or Kobe) that could , using their great athletic ability (they don't), to get those open shots. There's no reason that our best scorers (stars) should be in the low 40s% from inside the 3pt line.

I mean, how can you sit there and not *see* with your own eyes that these guys are just better shooters than Kobe, McGrady, Vince, or IA, or Pierce (the top stars; these are the guys that *should* set the standard for the NBA. Not the 2nd tier guys)?

This is even evident when these guys are wide open! They just hit those shots better; form and technique. They ARE better shooters, plain and simple. McGrady granded, was at 45% two years ago. That's a start. But to say that he can't achive 48% because other guards like Bibby(45%) Nash (47%), Cassell (47%), Payton (47%) have not, is crazy. In fact, it's all the more reason that he should be better in efficiency. Our stars of today have *other* priorities.

For example...
Are you telling me that, Jordan, in THIS era, could not average 29ppg, at 50% shooting? What about Bird? You going to tell me that he couldn't average 24ppg at 48% shooting today? Don't you think they would find away to get those shots? They *knew* how to adapt! That's the issue here. Not defense, not changing rules, not only athletic ability.

Our stars of today have not learned the same type of skills (some have; like KG and Duncan). But many of these "stars" just don't have it in their brains. They werent taught, or didn't choose to concentrate these skills as important as "scoring."

 

So where did Carlos Arroyo learn this skill set?

He's the guy who owned us on Sunday. His background is 4 years at Florida International U(no, they don't play under FIBA rules, despite the name....), Colegio Santiago Apostol HS in PR, and 4 whole games with Vitoria, a Spanish team.