<blockquote><hr>DavidS I mean, how can I get you to understand the skill level of a particular player? That these players *could* shoot better overall and score in many ways, other than drving for dunks.<hr></blockquote>I just have a big problem with you choosing Kobe and TMac as your examples. Pick Larry Hughes or Stackhouse or something. Kobe is a very good shooter....very good turnaround jumper. Those guys do much more than just drive to hole for a dunk or foul call. It's almost not worth arguing. <blockquote><hr>Now, remember. I"m talking about our best players of yesteryear and today.<hr></blockquote>Right...and it is not a valid comparison, because we may never ever see a player as good as Bird and Jordan again. So any comparison to them will make every decade look worse at fundamentals than the 80s. It's not a valid argument. All you're saying is that if Kobe would work more learn how to shoot and pass like Bird, then Kobe would be the best player who ever played. Not only is that not a valid argument, it is disrespect to Larry Bird. If it were so easy to create, pass, and shoot like Bird, we'd see more players doing it. Before and after Bird. It's like saying, why can't Garnett learn how to do the Dreamshake. He must not care to learn. Saying all a guy needs to do is practice more to be like Bird and Jordan is an insult to Bird and Jordan.
Are you saying that Team USA, with a chance to play together for a while, can't crush Detroit under NBA rules? Are you saying that the Pistons management wouldn't exchange Team USA for their current roster for the same price if given a chance? By the way, I still think the "all star" Lakers would've beaten Detroit if Malone were healthy. In fact, I believe either one of San Antonio, Minnesota, and LA could've beaten Detroit when healthy. Team ball can only do so much. Detroit might be ONE of the best teams, but they did not represent THE best in the NBA. f4p, we all know that NBA top tier guys can win hands down. The question is, are the international players better players than these 2nd tier American players talentwise? If they are, as PSJ asserts (I personally don't agree), then the NBA is in trouble. If the 2nd tier stars aren't better than the top tier stars out there, then the NBA is not as good as we think. My contention in this thread is that these players are still more talented than most of the other countries players. But their skills aren't suitable for international competition. If that is the case, then the NBA is ignoring the rest of the world and is producing a brand of basketball in isolation.
You are saying that Team USA losing in the Olympics has no bearing in the state of the NBA, because Team USA is an all star team that don't play well together. I intentionally twisted what you say (adding "with the chance to play together" and "under NBA rules") to show that you are not arguing the key point, my key point anyway. Team USA does represent the NBA. They are better than any NBA teams, including the current champion. The only thing they lack is a chance to play together, which is no excuse because the NT of other countries have the same problem.
Oh, so you are saying that the Puerto Rico NT Team would crush every NBA team in the league, since they just crushed Team USA. You twist a statement; then I'll twist a statement, and we get nowhere. I could smell that from a mile away.
Kim, I don't know about others. I am not disputing the fact that by and large, top tier American talents are still far superior than the rest of the world. But what is Team USA 2004? Most of them are second tier stars. You say that other than Duncan and Iverson, all the rest are inexperienced and overrated. Inexperienced is not a good reason because our college kids used to crush the rest of the world. Are they overrated? Overrated by whom? LeBron, Melo, Amare, Jefferson (look at his new contract), Marbury, Marion, Odom, these are widely considered star caliber players, not just by the selection committee. If they are overrated, then the widely accepted rating stardard in the NBA is flawed. And that is exactly what the alarmists are saying.
I have no intention to argue with you whether you and me should care about international game. It's something subjective and ultimately beyond rational one way or another. What puzzles me is your seemingly inconsistent sentiment. On the one hand, you are a relativist when it comes to what is good basketball. To you, whatever way that wins is the right way, according to your "I Love This Game" answer. On the other hand, you are an absolutist when it comes to what are good basketball rules. In your reply to Smeg's post, you assert that the NBA rules are the best. How do you determine that the NBA rules (or any set of rules, for that matter) is good? Good basketball is winning basketball under a set of rules. Then you arbitrarily choose a set of rules and say that winning under THAT is best basketball. It seems to me, all you are saying is that since you are American, and you live in the US, so as far as you're concerned, the best basketball is American basketball no matter what happens out there. Am I missing something?
1. Our college kids stopped "crushing" the world as early as 1972 -- while that team obviously won, it didn't crush the Russians, it beat them by a point until the funny business. By 1988, our college "crushing" was over. Our guys didn't have as big of a talent edge anymore, due to increasing worldwide popularity of basketball (example: we had David Robinson at C -- who was probably second best to Sabonis in that tourney) LIkewise, gaining popularity in Europe meant better & tougher competition for them on the club and int'l level -- and hence more experience. So we had 21 year olds with 2-4 years of college experience going against 25-35 year olds with 7-10 years of pro experience, in leagues that began to produce guys that could compete at a D-I level, and some at an NBA level(example, you think Sabonis played tougher competition in Europe during the 88 Season (under FIBA rules, no less)? Or did David Robinson at Navy (Colonial Athletic Association, I think) ? 2. Obviously, contracts for younger players factor in future performance, so that's not a great gauge. If there were no salary cap, LeBron would probably be the highest paid player, and Yao would be second. Doesn't mean that NBA GM's consider them the two best players.
I have no intention to be pigeonholed by you "rationalist/absolutist/apologist" and now the last "stubborn American" while you " intentionally twisted what I say" so as to squeeze me back into an arbitrary set of views by which you choose to classify our bball reasoning. That's why you're "puzzled." I tried to explain my view to you, and you're trying to find a pigeonhole to stuff it into, but it's not fitting. Other than that...it was a fun conversation.
LOL, it's that pigeonholing again, huh. Just because I use a couple of technical terms, I'm pigeonholing. I agree that nobody can be pigeonholed because nobody is totally consistent, including myself. Just to make it clear, the "twisting" I did was not for proving my point, but for exposing your inconsistency. You could've done that to me and I would've been exposed. This is called. . . oh forget it. . . just another pigeonhole. . . Yeah, it was a fun conversation. I learned something from your view of what "playing right" is. And you got me to compare the phenomenon of basketball with that of soccer.
Sam, The only team that could compete with our college kids was the USSR. Without the USSR in 1984, the college kids still crushed everybody like the Dream Team. You're right that by 1988, college kids could no longer dominate. That's when we decided to use NBA players. But if you look at Team USA this year, there are still plenty of experienced pros. They just aren't top tier superstars. I have said that if the second tier stars of the NBA cannot dominate, then the league is not as good as we think. As to the inexperienced issue, the question is, are guys like James, Wade and Anthony just inexperienced or not good enough (at this point of their careers) therefore overrated by NBA standard?
Those of you ready to chalk up the US team's shortcomings to "selfish, and-1 playground balling", guess who, despite being by far the worst outside shooters in the tourney, is leading in assists so far: http://www.nbcolympics.com/results/5038628/detail.html
<blockquote><font size=1>Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Easy Just to make it clear, the "twisting" I did was not for proving my point, but for exposing your inconsistency. You could've done that to me and I would've been exposed.<hr></blockquote>You're right...your "twisting" "achieved exposing my inconsistency"; I'm fine with that because I'm not in this thread to prove anything like you are. Yeah, put me down as being inconsistent in your way of categorizing people's takes. I never tried to "twist" your words to "expose your inconsistency," because I have nothing to prove. I love basketball, watch a sh!tload of it, and appreciate all it's variations. If I moved to Europe, you can bet I'd be a season-ticket holder there, too. I can appreciate your view because I have a lot in common with it. My ultimate take on our discussion is I think I'm much closer to understanding your take than you are mine. I Love this Game, and don't see the connection between Team USA and HS bball, NCAAs, and NBA basketball that I know and love. So, allow me to do to you what you did to not only me but pretty much every fan here following the Olympics. Let my offer another stupid list of categorizing people:<ol><li><b>Dreamer Teamers:</b> American fans of the Olympics who want domination at any sport and bball is historically are biggest domination, so naturally they will defend them or get upset with them.<li><b>Bashers:</b> Americans who love the Olympics but have something against the NBA, so they are using the outcome of Team USA to continue their bashing of the NBA, and spread the "Myths" that Kim is disspelling.<li><b>Gloaters:</b> Foreigners who just want to see the Americans lose; which is fine, that's the way we always felt about the USSR.<li><b>Gloaters trying to Prove Something:</b> foreigners trying to make some logical connection between Team USA's results and the NBA in order to gloat and bash the NBA at the same time.<li><b>"I Love This Game" people:</b> People who aren't #1, #2, #3 or #4 and likely didn't really think Dream Team 1 was necessary or particularly fun to watch. We are just waiting for Preseason, and are posting here because #1, #2, #3, and #4 aren't representing all views on basketball.</ol>Easy...you are #4: Gloater trying to Prove Something. so, how does it feel to be pigeonholed with this stupid list of 5 possible takes. <blockquote><font size=1>Quote:</font><hr>I learned something from your view of what "playing right" is. And you got me to compare the phenomenon of basketball with that of soccer.<hr></blockquote>I disagree...the lesson to be learned here is don't speak for people and try to think you understand the depths of all possible types of bball fans and ways of following this sport. I never try to do that to you. What I learned is you like soccer more than basketball, and I love basketball more that soccer. Yet you want to assume you can figure out all ways fans are thinking about my favorite sport, while I'm not presuming anything about soccer...I just want to learn about soccer from its fan takes and my eyes.
Kobe and TMac are different players from each other. I prefer TMac's potential better than Kobe's. What I do wonder about is if McGrady can match Kobe's passion(drive to never give up). We'll see if that happens. I also prefer McGrady's low turnovers to Kobe's TO history. I don't feel that Kobe is a very good shooter. I think he's a great scorer. That's different. He's not Jerry West. This is irrespective of "great" defenses of today. Better defense's just make matters worse if they still aren't very good shooters or team players in the first place (which is what has happened over the last 15 years). McGrday is a bit better than Kobe, although. Lets see if he can get his average above 45% next year (save any back problems; like last year) and increase his assist numbers. I just don't buy this "today's defenses are way better and that's why our stars can't shoot as well (or pass)" argument. That does have a major effect of limiting the ISO. But not great *teams* w/their stars. Any team (led by a star) can overcome a defense. BUT, you NEED the *team* for that to happen (ask Jordan). It's up to that team and stars ability to figure out how (mesh team smarts w/physical ability). Also, playing mostly ISO can work against that star player. It's playing right into the jaws of that "defense." And if that's what these ISO players strong points are, then what do you think will happen? You'll be playing right into that defenses hands (and that's a great way for someone to use "better defenses of today" as an excuse for lack of team skills and/or shooting). Next... And the reason I used those two players in my example was because they ARE our "superstars" of this league (part of our top 5). It just didn't seem inline with comparing Shaq's dominance with Jordan's. Or Duncan's to Bird. So, I used two guard/forwards (Kobe/McGrady). Their roles are similar to Jordan/Birds. Now, in my eyes, they aren't the same level. Like you said. We may never see players like Bird and Jordan. Although, I hate using the word "never." I just find these players' games less enjoyable to watch (individually, team wise and skill wise; even though athletically they are great). It's not because they can score. It's in spite of that. It's because they don't do other things to improve their teams (passing and rebounding). At least IMO (subjective; leave it at that). Score 29 pts all you want. If you don't make your team better in other ways by getting them involved...then, they are not really comparable to Jordan or Bird. And like you said, maybe they never will. Some would say, "Hey, it's the best we got." I say....sigh. (by the way, IMO, the "best we got" are KG and Duncan). Again, if prefer watching McGrady over Kobe. Especially since I think he has better potential to be "Bird like" or "Gervin like" or "Jordan like." And my point is not about McGrady becoming "mirror images" of those players. But rather, pick up characteristics, skills and the versatility of their games. Next year? I hope 24/8/8 for TMac. Never say never... And no, I'm NOT saying, "if Kobe would just learn how to shoot and pass he'd be the best player who ever played." I'm saying that they would be more versatile, and more able to make those around him, better. And the league would benefit from it (better quality stars; like KG and Duncan). The best combination is the *team game (and players)* meshed with an individual star (or two) that can understand how to play both individually and team oriented. And it's not an insult to Bird or Jordan to try and learn their skills or desire to play similar to them. Some would say (even Bird and Jordan) "I'm glad some stars are trying to learn how to play the game the way it's supposed to be played." And I'm sure they'd welcome it. Not be insulted by it.
I guess performing this little bit of research was too much for a "professional" like John Lopez (Edit- he's got a point about defense, but I would characterize that as laziness rather than selfishness. As for the rest....) Right - European players (and Puerto Ricans) go outside and practice footwork and free throw shooting while American players only practice dunking. And passing, yeah none of these guys ever pass the ball. Those assists are just, uh, luck assists. It's also funny when people laucnch into the "these and 1 playground ballers" tirade, they usually mention "too many three point shots" as a symptom of decay. That has been absent during this recent tirading season, I guess because the 19-9 three pointer is found on most "playground" courts most people leave that one at home; especially since the inability to hit a slightly longer version of that shot is far and away the US team's most apparent weakness this tourney. Statistically, it's not even close, before today we were dead last in that stat, well below China. (question, does the fact that the 20 foot jumper is mathematically the "worst shot in basketball" under NBA rules and players are conditioned not to take it factor in here?). That's the problem with hack loser journalists like John Lopez today. They don't work on their fundamentals. They just go for the easy set up and the quick laugh, they don't bother to fact check or research any of the junk that they write. Unless we do something about it, lazy spoiled brats like him are going to ruin sports journalism as we know it.
Grega Nachbar just signed a one-year deal with a team (Lions) in the Austrian League this week. He will play PG & SG. Here is a picture of Grega, his head coach and the GM at the signing of the contract. http://www.prostimet.com/NoviceSLO/default.asp?method=page&id=5566
Jasikevicius was the difference today. Team USA beaten by another player with "fundamentals"....which he must have acquired somewhere other than his american high school or the Maryland Terrapins -- hey does that mean Steve Francis also has fundamentals? [
