Team Argentina

Lottery.

I'm not sure Ginobli can carry a team offensively for an entire season (it's harder than it looks or more guys could do it). Oberto is really not very good. Scola is not a second or third option type of guy for NBA ball. Not to mention this team has no depth. They might start off decent but would falter badly down the stretch.

30 wins at most but more likely in the mid to upper 20s.

 

I think they win 45-50 with that team......

DD

 

Your preferences are well known to all of us, as is your affinity for non-NBA players "MORE NBA READY THAN SAM CASSELL!" in spite of such things as logic and reality.

As for the U Memphis Tigers, they have great team chemistry, a go to guy in Derrick Rose, and the rest of the guys play extremely well together and complement each other well. The problem is that they don't play in the NBA and don't have NBA talent 1-15, and that if you put them in a full NBA season they would be ground to a pulp by the end of the season. That's called reality - the same reality that a less-talented NBA team would face.

I'm not talking about the Olympics. This thread is not about the Olympics. This thread is about an 82 game season. Played against teams with a lot more chemistry and experience playing with each other than Argentina does. Rafer Alston and Shane Battier have probably 160 games together at this point in their careers. That is more times than Manu and Scola will ever suit up together - EVER.

Considering that team USA has the best overall record - far and away - of any team in International play over the last 12 years or so (considred to be the worst stretch of Team USA ever), including five out of the last six over the Argies - I'd consider reevaluating your conclusion to read that "team ball ALMOST NEVER triumphs) - But anyway we're not talking about international play.

We're talking about the NBA. I'm looking at the standings....I'm looking at the standings....I'm seeing a lot of talent up at the top. In fact I am seeing teams loaded with Hall of Famers on the top of each conference. But I guess they haven't seen magic argentine team-ball yet.....

You're the one who thinks whities/int'l/duke players have a magic team ball element that you fawn over. I don't really find it sad. I also don't really care that you like Mike Harris - good for you that you do. That doesn't make anything you say here any more relevant.

 

I like a certain style of basketball.......smart heady back cut style of basketball.

The kind that Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, and Sacremento used to run....it is what I prefer.

Whether a player is white or black, I could care less, as long as they play smart basketball.

What irks me is your insistance of tossing in the "White" reference which is clearly you doing a back slap at my takes.

It is weak, and unwarranted....but not at all surprising...

Even Jeff has admonished you before for you making racially biased posts.....sad sad sad Sam.

As to how many games that team would win, there is no point in arguing, as it is all based upon opinion......no way of solving it.

DD

 

^ stop with this "I'm not a racist i'm so hurt" Nobody cares.

Why don't you answer any of the substantive points - all I see you is pointing to "team ball" to make up the difference. But you can't really point out why or how this teamball is going to overcome what would be the least talented team in the NBA, playing an NBA schedule, by NBA rules - against teams that play just as much or more "teamball" That is a huge mountain to overcome over the course of 82 games.

 

What point is there in arguing with you about an opinion? I think team Argentina would be competitive because they play very well as a team.

There are tons of teams in the NBA that are not good at playing together, and great individual talent does not always equal more wins.

Just look at the Rockets and their 22 game winning streak, particularly the 10 without Yao, they were not always the most talented team on the floor but by playing together they were able to win games against teams with more individual talent.

Chemistry is a hard thing to get and once you have it, it is tough to beat.

Argentina is one of the best international teams in the world and against USA, they would have a good shot of winning.....and they would not be close to the USA athletically.

As for the racist stuff, you constantly bring it up and make it impossible to ignore.....I am not going to sit idly by as you basically attempt to label me a bigot to demean my posts......that is classless.....and unwarranted......

DD

 

So U Memphis Tigers are as good as the Argentinian national team

I get your argument, but you can't argue from a lesser to disprove a greater - well, you can, and you did, but it doesn't work.

The Argentinian national team has 6 guys currently playing in the NBA and another few who have NBA experience. So it's not logical to use the 'they don't play in the NBA' argument.

They wouldn't win anything in their first year, granted, but give them some experience and there's actually some players who could be decent contributers there.

Oberto isn't going to dazzle with his post moves, but if he can start for the Spurs then he's doing something right in some facet of the game.

There's no reason to think that Ginobli couldn't score 20ppg. It's not much of a stretch to imagine Nocioni getting 15-16 and Scola likewise.

Delfino and Herrman (and Nocioni and Ginobli) stretch the defense and can certainly put the ball in the hoop (both have averaged over 9ppg for a season in the NBA).

Pepe Sanchez is the equivalent of Brevin Knight (ie. great distributor and protects the ball but can't shoot a lick). He'd play more NBA if he didn't earn more in Europe (why would a team pay $3-4 mill a season for him if they can sign the actual Brevin Knight for less). Same story with the other PG, who is a better shooter.

So you couldn't say they'd be the worst offensive team in the league, the question would remain: Can they play good enough defense to win some games?
And the answer has to be 'yes' based on their team defensive ethos, and the proven defensive contributions made by those who are already in the NBA. Scola, Ginobli, Oberto, Nocioni are all known as good defenders. Pepe Sanchez would average 2 steals per game (isn't that why he made the 'all america' team at college? For leading the nation in steals or something?)

Anyway Sam, your 'no NBA experience' argument has SOME merit (I'd give them 30-35 wins in their first season) but I think the logical outcome of the argument is to then say that WITH NBA experience the players adapt to the style of play and become better players.
It seems to be the way Ginobli and Nocioni have progressed, Scola will do the same, and most rookies follow the same path of improvement from their first season.
So no NBA experience would hamper in their first season, but the experience gained would put them in good stead for future seasons.

 

Uh, it seems to help greatly. Look at the stndings. Anyway, we're not talkling about any individual team. in the NBA We are talking about Argentina playing 82 games night in and night out against hte full slate of NBA competitoin You are claiming that an Argentina team would flourish and be an instant contender against this schedule.

The Rockets, even without Yao, are probably more talented and better equipped for the NBA than the Argie team. Anyway, I am not talking about a 22 game stretch, or even a 10 game stretch. I am talkig about the 82 game grind. If Yao is gone for the entire season I have a hard time seeing this Rockets team winning 35 games. Much less easily making the playoffs

I don't know what makes you assume that the better teams in the NBA don't have any. These ar the teams the argies are coming up against.

THey have about a 1 in 6 chance of winning under rules and conditions most favorable to win, according to the last 6 tims the teams played. Assuming that translates to the NBA (which it doesn't, that gives them a 16% winning percentage. I'm not sure why you interpet this emprical evidence so favorably.

....zzz...

 

Why not - why can't I just say they have more chemistry and that this will make up for the tremendous talent gap? That is what I am hearing from above.

I don't see a whole lot of young talent on that team, Ginobili has peaked and Scola is pushing 30. These two would have to play 40 minutes. I don't see Scola ever becoming an all-star. The guys who don't have NBA experience aren't really NBA talents, so I don't see it helping much. I guess Nocioni could get better but I dont' see him as a franchise player, which is what he'd have to be a for Argentina.

 

YOU JUST DESCRIBED THE EASTERN CONFERENCE

Actually give them the NBA Treatment aka "more shots to chug" and they'll be far better than just "3-4 role players, 1 good player and bench fodders".

Yea, cause we all know how amazing the lottery picks have turned out these years right? For every Lebron and Yao, there's how many Jay Williams? The fact these guys aren't drafted by the NBA hardly means they're non-NBA talent.

Actually, what IS NBA talent? A career bench warmer is still NBA talent?

Wow wow, reply to what's there, not whatever your imagination tells you. Who said anything about championship?

What? Is your whole act a repressed black man routine? Can you stop with the imagination already?

Totally irrelevant. What's with the race thing again? I'm not even white. You sure love assuming everyone's white don't you

 

Scola will be 30 after 2 more full seasons.
He doesn't NEED to become an all-star, but if he was the best player for that team in the world championships, it's only fair to give him credit that he might have some improvement on his numbers this season (12.5 and 7.5 as a starter in just 28 minutes. 13.4 and 8.9 in 30 minutes last month).

If Nocioni (who entered the league as a 25 year old) can go from 8.4 and 4.8 to 13.0 and 6.1 from his rookie to second season, then why can't Scola (entering as a 27 year old) expect a spike in his numbers?

And if you have a 15 and 9 power forward, teamed up with a bunch of guys who shoot the three, and play strong defense. AND THEN throw a 20ppg scorer (Manu) into the mix you're looking at a team that might win more than the odd game.

As for Ginobli peaking - you better tell him that!
His scoring averages over his career:
7.6
12.8
16.0
15.1
16.5
19.8

His percentages are always good, he's a tough defender and a good passer of the ball (4.5 apg this season are fine numbers)

He's playing more minutes this season than ever before - and even IF it's his peak, then why is that not good enough?

It's proven in the NBA that you don't need young talent to win games. If you had put 'team Argentina' in the NBA as a squad following their 'big win' then no doubt they would be making some noise now.

I wouldn't lock them in for the playoffs, but you'd think 30 wins their first year is no stretch, and then upwards from there.

 

Err - that's 1 in 6 chances of winning against an All-Star team.

If you go by that logic (which you shouldn't) then you could extrapolate to suggest that the best teams have 2 all-stars: and if you have 1 in 6 chances of beating 12 all-stars, then do the odds reduce 6-fold by playing against 2 all-stars? Therefore you have a 6 in 6 chance of beating a squad with 2 all-stars....



I'm not sure why you interpret that emprical evidence so favourably



I know the point you're trying to make - but this thread is becoming fun....

 

25 Wins.......

 

It's a one in six chance of beating an allstar team that lacks the mystical "team ball" element (since they were just thrown together) that an NBA team has, under highly favorable international rules, in a one-off tournament.

If that's the best that magic team ball can get you, shouldn't they do much better than one win out of six?

Unless you are aruging that a thrown-together dream team could take the Celtics in a seven game series? I don't know if they could. Magic "team ball" edges don't work when you're going up against teams that play together more than you do.

My bad I had assumed he is a few years younger than he is, In that case I don't see much more coming from him and am marveling as to why the Bulls gave him a big contract.

I just don't see a dramatic leap coming at age 28. Hakeem Olajuwon's are pretty rare. BUt anyway - you're telling me he doesn't NEED to be an all star.

Not on the Rockets, no he doesn't. Now, when you're talking about the fact that he's got to be the primary post threat for 82 nights a year for 40 minutes a night on this fictional Argentine national team in the NBA- he better be an all star or get pretty damned close. ANd you're right, he might score 13 or 14 ppg next year. That ain't going to cut it if this Argentine national team franchise is to avoid being the worst team in the NBA - you nee him to be a 19-9 player for 40 min/night. Sorry but I don't see it.

Ginobili
You're not accounting for his increased minutes from year to year. he's still improving but not at the rate you suggest. If we flatten it out based on minutes he goes from 19-19-21-22 /36 min the last 4 years. Still improving but not as dramatic. But like I said he's peaking - you think after one more year in the NBA he's going to just keep going up? I just don't buy it - I don't see him tapping the fountain of youth like that - Why? See below:

That's not even mentioning the fact that he's done this as a second or third fiddle. On the hypothetical Argy pros, He's going to do this while carrying a weak team, facing double teams for 40 minutes a night, 82 games a year, with no Tony Parker and no Tim Duncan and no Bruce Bowen to use energy on defense - he's not fragile but he's no iron man either.

Any way you slice it - from 1-15 the hypo Argy pros are probably the weakest roster in the NBA. The only true star is Ginobili, who has never had the burden of being a franchise player.

I just am scrathing my head as to how you say these guys need time to adjust to the NBA. They don't need time to adjust to the NBA - most of them have been here for years. They just need teammates who aren't total scrubs.

dback

I have no idea what you are talking about even anymore. Put in the hoosiers DVD, tape measure the court, and give it a rest. Or watch White Men Can't Jump or He Got Game. Or not. Who cares.

 

lol, who would have thought that argies would get so much response, and at some point even turn into a white/black senario. haha

lets try it differently, which of the playoff team, all 16 of them, that team argies is better than?

i see them winning the wiz and the raptors.

 

I'm pretty sure the Bulls made the playoffs for a couple of seasons without their second scorer hitting more than 15ppg?

All I'm saying is that with 2 guys scoring 15-16, 2 guys at 9-10, and one guy getting 20, then IN THEORY you've got a balanced enough attack to score enough points to win some games: the argument then looks at the defence to see if they can keep up with their opponents.
IN THEORY they'd have enough defensive manpower to do something...

As for Ginobli and his minutes:
21
29
29
27
27
31

This year hasn't been a big spike in minutes - it's just that he's been given the go-ahead to take over the game more. He's off the bench so he can play with a green light to create or score or do whatever he wants. And don't argue that he does it all against scrubs - what are the head coaches in the NBA complete morons? They don't realise that the Spurs leading scorer comes in from the bench? He's that much of a threat that of course he gets guarded - he's just a good player who can finish at the rim.

Anyway, I think you're probably right about their depth: 1 injury to any of their top 6 would be more than cruel. The rest of the players are of Steve Novak calibre.

Time to adjust? 2 of them have played more than 2 seasons in the NBA. The rest need 'time to adjust' to that style.

Mind you, if they bombed out in their first season, at least they'd have a high lottery pick for next time around

 

Just not enough talent on that squad. Ginobli is not good enough to be the best player on a 50 win team much less a top 10-15 NBA team. The rest of the guys are not good enough to be the second option even if the first option (Ginobli) is a top 10 NBA player (which he is not).

What you have is a guy who is a #2 or #3 option on a great team being forced to be a franchise player and surrounding him with role players who are going to be forced to become serious options on offense. Oberto, in particular is not very good. Put him on a team where his one dimensional, non-skilled game is not covered up by one of the best big men to ever play the game and I'm not sure he can even crack the active roster on many NBA teams.

And they have no bench.

Lottery.

 

They'd have a high lotto pick - but they'd have to pick the 16th best player in Argentina - not much help!

Sorry but where are all these points going to come from? The only guy who is even an above average scorer after Manu is Nocioni. And he's not particularly efficient at doing it. Scola ain't a scorer - not when he's basically alone up front next to Oberto, who is useless, and Delfino isn't going to give you much either.

Here's the Argies vs. the Bobcats - a low 30 win EC team.

Per 36 min averages, based on this season:

Oberto - 8 ppg 9 rpg 13.6 PER
Scola 15 ppg 9 rpg 15.5 PER
Nocioni 19 ppg 6.0 rpg 13.8 PER
Ginobili - 22 ppg 5 apg 5rpg 24.4 PER
Delfino 13 ppg 3 apg 13.4 PER


Bobcats

Muhammed 13.6 ppg 10.7 rpg 15.1 PER
Okafor 15 ppg 12 rpg 2bpg 17.1 PER
Wallace 18 ppg 6 rpg 4 apg 17.6 PER
Richardson 20 ppg 5 rpg 17.9 PER
Felton 14 ppg 7apg 13.5 PER

Remember, a 15.0 PER is considered average.

The ony place the Bobcats are arguably weaker is Ginobili. I think you are highly overestimating the weak links in the roster for the Argies - I don't think Delfino or Oberto are really NBA starters at all, which is why they don't start (well Oberto does but he plays 19 minutes per game.) Nocioni is probably starter quality but his performance has been mediocre at best this year, so the jury is out on him. Scola is a solid player as we all know, but he's got a pretty tough task having to be the entire low post offense (and defense) in a league loaded with athletic power forwards.

 

You know SamFisher, I agree with your arguments for the most part. But I think you're really pushing the "talent over chemistry" argument to the extreme.

I would personally rank the Argentina team's overall talent in the bottom 10. Maybe 5th from the bottom. However, since the bottom feeders in the NBA are so incredibly flawed, I really can't see how the Argentina team would suck.

I mean, look at teams like the Grizzlies(no defense), the Knicks(trainwreck), Bucks(no team play), Sonics(no talent/experience), etc. And it's hard to fathom that team belongs in this group.

I feel they belong to the next tier, 30-40 wins depending on which conference they play. Generally competitive, but still going to get beat by the top teams.

 

I put the over under at 30 wins, about at Bobcat level. Like I said earlier - they could proably beat dregs that have basically given up that's where there 25-30 wins come from. But at least some of those dregs have SOME depth. The second Manu goes down- they are screwed, because they are almost a Dleague squad after him.