RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Men's Basketball General Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Olympics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11465



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/16 5:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's interesting. A team like Argentina can come out all psyched up and jump out to a ten point lead, but in the end, the talent gap and superior depth of the US asserts itself and they can't maintain that energy level for an entire game.

Still, they might as well have Sylvia Hatchell coach this team because it looks like the only coaching being done by the US is deciding who plays and when. Otherwise it's just roll 'em out on the floor and let 'em play.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 14459



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/16 5:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Australia-Spain semi should be fun to watch. I still think the USA men will have an easy time regardless of who their next opponent is.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11465



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/16 6:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This game today has turned into a preview of why the US will win.

They come out, look like crap, the opponent plays out of it's mind for a few minutes, and then the US size, talent, and depth just wears the opponent down

This game flipped pretty quickly from a 10 pt Argentina lead to a US blowout. Final score, 105-78.

Last Olympic game likely for Ginobli and some other Argentina players.


Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 17628



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/16 7:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

miller40 wrote:
The Boomers and Opals switched sides for Rio. This Boomers team is really fun to watch and could make the gold game ... while the Opals bombed out.


Has been such a great display of basketball by the Boomers Very Happy
(and yes - it's about time the men did this after 20 years of the women getting all the results)

Boomers a legit chance of their first ever medal.

Hopefully arch enemies Croatia & Serbia smash the crap out of each other in a 3OT bloodbath Twisted Evil



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4257



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 5:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yesterday's game vs. Argentina was the first game I've been able to see.

Before the game, I saw people talking about how they were worried about Argentina.

For the first 10 minutes, their fears seemed justified. Then reality struck.
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 14410
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 7:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Youth Coach wrote:
Yesterday's game vs. Argentina was the first game I've been able to see.

Before the game, I saw people talking about how they were worried about Argentina.

For the first 10 minutes, their fears seemed justified. Then reality struck.


Australia, Croatia, France Spain are all better then Argentina. So was not really suprised that USA won by a big margin



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11465



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 8:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michelle89 wrote:
Youth Coach wrote:
Yesterday's game vs. Argentina was the first game I've been able to see.

Before the game, I saw people talking about how they were worried about Argentina.

For the first 10 minutes, their fears seemed justified. Then reality struck.


Australia, Croatia, France Spain are all better then Argentina. So was not really suprised that USA won by a big margin


Argentina beat Croatia.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 14459



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 9:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And Croatia lost to Serbia last night in the quarterfinals. The men's semis are:

Aug. 19
United States vs. Spain, 2:30pm
Australia vs. Serbia, 6:00pm



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 44141



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 10:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hopefully Rubio can put a spike in his trade value



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 14410
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 10:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Hopefully Rubio can put a spike in his trade value


Does his shot look better?

Argentina lost to Spain while Croatia won from Spain.
Argentina lost to Lithuania while Croatia won from Lithuania

I think Croatia is a better team then Argentina



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 11420



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 6:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Argentina was a good matchup for the US because they didn't have enough size, depth or play style to compete. Too much two-man game to have a chance. The way to beat the US men is to have the personnel to go 4-high and 1-low with a lot of motion offense and backcuts. They'll overplay passing lanes and they'll go for pump fakes when they're beaten. They're honestly not a smart team top to bottom (outside of a few players like Klay Thompson and Paul George). In the NBA, you don't have to play 5-man basketball because the 3 point line and the defensive 3-second naturally space the floor. So they're not used to actually defending against basketball the way it was meant to be played. And in a sport with mega-guaranteed contracts, think about it, why should players listen to coaching? In the NBA, any coach only goes as far as the acceptance of the players. Even if Coach K and Boeheim are on the bench. Even if the guy who's regarded as one of the game's best defensive minds (Tom Thibodeau) is on the bench. If two hall of fame coaches and a defensive guru aren't enough to get these guys to play team basketball or defense, then it's the players' fault. That's why there's times they've looked lost against an international style of play. In the US, they don't have to defend this way, and haven't had to going back as far as AAU ball.

These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired. While this is not the best team USA that it could be with certain star players missing, a team composed of Melo, Durant, Klay, Butler, Jordan, etc. should be more than enough to win. There's two surefire hall-of-famers on team USA and several other upper-echelon stars on the team. If their IQ matched their talent they'd win every game by at least 30 points. The fact that some of these games are so competitive when they shouldn't be is certainly symbolic of the state of the NBA today. I refuse to watch it.



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 399



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 2:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote:
Argentina was a good matchup for the US because they didn't have enough size, depth or play style to compete. Too much two-man game to have a chance. The way to beat the US men is to have the personnel to go 4-high and 1-low with a lot of motion offense and backcuts. They'll overplay passing lanes and they'll go for pump fakes when they're beaten. They're honestly not a smart team top to bottom (outside of a few players like Klay Thompson and Paul George). In the NBA, you don't have to play 5-man basketball because the 3 point line and the defensive 3-second naturally space the floor. So they're not used to actually defending against basketball the way it was meant to be played. And in a sport with mega-guaranteed contracts, think about it, why should players listen to coaching? In the NBA, any coach only goes as far as the acceptance of the players. Even if Coach K and Boeheim are on the bench. Even if the guy who's regarded as one of the game's best defensive minds (Tom Thibodeau) is on the bench. If two hall of fame coaches and a defensive guru aren't enough to get these guys to play team basketball or defense, then it's the players' fault. That's why there's times they've looked lost against an international style of play. In the US, they don't have to defend this way, and haven't had to going back as far as AAU ball.

These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired. While this is not the best team USA that it could be with certain star players missing, a team composed of Melo, Durant, Klay, Butler, Jordan, etc. should be more than enough to win. There's two surefire hall-of-famers on team USA and several other upper-echelon stars on the team. If their IQ matched their talent they'd win every game by at least 30 points. The fact that some of these games are so competitive when they shouldn't be is certainly symbolic of the state of the NBA today. I refuse to watch it.


Eh, one man's ceiling, and all that... To me, the WNBA became a lot more fun to watch when they started adopting more of the NBA's rules, especially outlawing zone defenses. That's why I'm glad that these tournaments only happen every four years, and that's why I never watch college basketball, either men's or women's: I don't want anything to do with basketball, the so-called "way it was meant to be played."

That said, man this team is not built correctly. Not so much to do with a lack of "smarts," in my opinion, so much as a lack of roleplayers. This team would actually be more potent with less talent.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11465



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 3:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Lowry, Jordan and Thompson played really well today.

Carmelo played like crap.

I don't understand why Barnes and DeRozan have not played more. They're both good and have played well in the Olympics when they've played. Overall don't understand a lot of Krzyzewski's personnel decisions this whole tourney.

But they won and advanced to the gold medal game 82-76. Overall an underwhelming performance.


Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 399



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 3:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree that Barnes should probably be playing more. DeRozan? They already have enough guys in the rotation who can't shoot and don't pass.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
miller40



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 937



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 5:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Boomers pulling an Opals.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 14459



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 6:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well there goes the hope that the Aussies would upset team USA for the gold. Sad



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 14459



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 7:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Was really looking forward to an Australia-USA final. Would've been the better match-up. The Aussie just didn't show up today. The USA will steamroll over Serbia(+/-20??).



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 14410
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/16 3:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bummer that tonight was the night they couldnt hit a shot to save their lives. The Boomers could have made it a very close game against USA Sad



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8332



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/16 10:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired.


I have to disagree. Read some of Zach Lowe's stuff on ESPN (if you don't already), as he reveals the depths and complexities of the NBA. And guys who aren't smart enough to absorb scouting reports and play with intelligence just don't last long.

Sure, this team, with no practice time, can't execute Thibodeau's defensive schemes very well, and yes, a lot of January NBA games are sloppy, but overall, the NBA is by far the best league in the world, from coaching to talent to execution on the floor.

The fact that it's sometimes simplistic is built into the game -- if a player can score one-on-one, there's no need to go to Plan B. (The WNBA is different in that fewer players can score one-on-one, which changes the dynamic substantially.)



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8332



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/16 10:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired.


I have to disagree. Read some of Zach Lowe's stuff on ESPN (if you don't already), as he reveals the depths and complexities of the NBA. And guys who aren't smart enough to absorb scouting reports and play with intelligence just don't last long.

Sure, this team, with no practice time, can't execute Thibodeau's defensive schemes very well, and yes, a lot of January NBA games are sloppy, but overall, the NBA is by far the best league in the world, from coaching to talent to execution on the floor.

The fact that it's sometimes simplistic is built into the game -- if a player can score one-on-one, there's no need to go to Plan B. (The WNBA is different in that fewer players can score one-on-one, which changes the dynamic substantially.)



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
bballjunkie



Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 280



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/16 12:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You cannot generalize ALL the NBA as you cannot with the W. Just watch the Warriors, Spurs, and even the Cavs played some good team oriented games. The year the Mavs won it was the same. Just like the Lynx there are teams that have players who make the better decisions which results in team basketball. Unfortunately I agree with those who said this men's team is not built that way, whereas the Women's team is.


NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 11420



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 3:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Quote:
These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired.


I have to disagree. Read some of Zach Lowe's stuff on ESPN (if you don't already), as he reveals the depths and complexities of the NBA. And guys who aren't smart enough to absorb scouting reports and play with intelligence just don't last long.

Sure, this team, with no practice time, can't execute Thibodeau's defensive schemes very well, and yes, a lot of January NBA games are sloppy, but overall, the NBA is by far the best league in the world, from coaching to talent to execution on the floor.

The fact that it's sometimes simplistic is built into the game -- if a player can score one-on-one, there's no need to go to Plan B. (The WNBA is different in that fewer players can score one-on-one, which changes the dynamic substantially.)


I think my use of the word intelligence was something of an oversimplification, but it's also not without merit. In my opinion the USA men roughly "out-talent" other men's teams about as much as the USA women do. I'd give the women a slight edge because their 12 deemed the best are playing. But even that doesn't represent the differential between the women blowing teams out in every game and the men barely being able to win half of theirs. The men have also actually been playing together a little longer prior to the Olympics than the women did, so not knowing the defensive schemes with weeks of practice time is not an excuse at all. I didn't see the women getting backdoored to death in half their games or yielding 68% from the field in a half like the men did.

I'm also not buying the argument that this is an ill-conceived team. It shouldn't be. The point guard just won an NBA title. Draymond Green defers and fits in on Golden State. Doing so here isn't an issue for him. DeAndre Jordan is an upper-echelon role player and one of the few playing his role well. Melo and Durant are hall of fame caliber scorers. The problem the men have is that if you take the defensive three second out of the equation and use 5-man systems against them they struggle to know how to react. Sure they can play 1-on-1 in the NBA, The game is tailor-made for it. Defensive help can't stay in the middle and the three point line is nine miles from the basket. If a team has some shooters, penetrations are going to be readily available.

But a lot of it is also ego over intelligence. This article tells everything you need to know about that:

http://www.detroitbadboys.com/2013/9/12/4720808/nba-coaches-hate-bill-laimbeer

Quote:
Before the 2010 NBA draft, many of the league's top decision-makers flew to Minnesota to watch a few prospects work out for the Timberwolves, who had a high pick. As one NBA general manager explains it, the purpose of these sessions is usually twofold: "The team is trying to impress the players as much as the players are trying to impress the team. And everyone with half a brain in the NBA understands this."

Laimbeer was on the court that day, running the workout. He set up one drill, telling the players to outlet the ball to him with a crisp chest pass, then run the lane and finish on the other end. Pretty basic stuff. Once the drill started, though, the players occasionally forgot the whole "outlet the ball" part, and Laimbeer, as he is known to do, called them out in a sarcastic manner. The next time around, the players remembered to outlet the ball but forgot about the chest pass. Laimbeer became visibly agitated by their inability to run the drill correctly. "By the end of the workout, we all thought there might be a fight on the court," one GM remembers. "Why make yourself the center of attention like that? For some executives, that day is all they know about him. And everyone left that gym with the same impression, that Laimbeer doesn't understand how the NBA works."

So, in other words, the way the NBA works is the player doesn't have to listen to the coach, or even know how to do the simplest drill. And in the case of Laimbeer, instead of being applauded for having expectations for players, trying to teach and trying to instill discipline, he's been blackballed from the NBA on the grounds that "he doesn't understand how the league works." I'm not going to applaud players for knowing scouting reports either. That to me is not the bar for intelligence, it's a job requirement that they should know how to do...not something to be patted on the back for. And with the number of blown assignments and bonehead passes I've seen from some of the league's best players in the Olympics, I'm not overwrought with confidence that intelligence necessarily keeps players in the league in every case. I'm sure it does for some. But for others athleticism and the NBA style of play makes for a good cover.

I know some teams play intelligently and I know it's also a matter of ego regarding one-on-one play. But if there's an argument here and also from some of my friends that "well the Cavs, Spurs and Warriors play intelligent ball" then I just have to shake my head. The bar we are setting is that 10% of the teams play intelligently and to be deemed intelligent the players should be able to understand a scouting report. That's an exceedingly low bar. Lebron James got a coach fired this year. A coach who introduced himself to the team by trying to run the team-oriented triangle offense. Now maybe Lebron has a bit of a case, being a pretty smart, team-oriented player in general. But you also have to wonder how commonplace it is that coaches really have any authority at all when players make so much more than the coach. I'm confident that there are players who don't do their due diligence when it comes to scouting reports. If the Olympics are an indicator with some of the best players in the world. it looks pretty commonplace to me with blown assignments galore in half the games. Not to mention I've heard Doug Collins say "need for ball movement" or "team play" or "need better defense" seemingly 100 times in the games I've watched. He's a former Olympian and an NBA coach. I'd say he's probably on to something.

Bottom line, whatever the explanations, Team USA was certainly not 6 points better on talent vs. Spain or 3 points better on talent vs. Serbia. The same point guard just won an NBA title playing with the best player in the world, so I'm not buying that PG is suddenly an issue like some have said. The problem is that Kyrie's deficiencies are magnified in an international game. But he's not alone. Kevin Durant has at times been exceptional in the Olympics. He almost never misses an open shot. He makes many contested ones. But when he puts the ball on the floor it's an adventure. He's just about as likely to pass to the other team as he is likely to pass to a teammate...something that I directly attribute to the more narrow spacing of the international game. The same is true of a number of players on the team as well as of a number of players who could be considered candidates to replace them. That is, if you take their one-on-one opportunities away and they aren't able to break down the defense, a lot of them have no clue what the hell to do next. That's not even taking into account some of the defense we've seen either.

And it's not like teams from the past few Olympics haven't been in close games against teams they've been better than. If it was just this team, I'd buy the "ill-conceived" argument. But I don't think that's it. I just think the NBA players have trouble adjusting to a game that requires they play more of a team game than an individual one. Whether it's intelligence, ego or other factors it's pretty undeniable. They struggle to win some of their games on the international level, with different teams, against teams they should for the most part dominate. It's not happening by accident.

And just to be clear, I know you haven't made all the arguments I cited above. I just decided to write an essay about all the arguments presented. Very Happy



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8514
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 10:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

today's final will be the first men's game i've watched.

i hope it holds my interest.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 399



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 11:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote:
I'm also not buying the argument that this is an ill-conceived team. It shouldn't be. The point guard just won an NBA title. Draymond Green defers and fits in on Golden State. Doing so here isn't an issue for him. DeAndre Jordan is an upper-echelon role player and one of the few playing his role well. Melo and Durant are hall of fame caliber scorers. The problem the men have is that if you take the defensive three second out of the equation and use 5-man systems against them they struggle to know how to react. Sure they can play 1-on-1 in the NBA, The game is tailor-made for it. Defensive help can't stay in the middle and the three point line is nine miles from the basket. If a team has some shooters, penetrations are going to be readily available.

Rubbish. Removing the defensive three-second rule makes it easier to defend, not harder. You think it's harder to defend when the center doesn't have to clear the lane, and you don't have to leave your assigned area, because you're playing zone? Miss me with that.

The team is poorly constructed, and to make matters worse, the coach isn't using the talent he does have in an optimal manner. Draymond Green should be starting: he's the only guy on the entire men's team who's first instinct when he gets the ball is to look for the open man, and Krzyzewski doesn't even play him. Kyrie Irving is not a point guard: he's just the shortest guy on the team, and is classified as a point guard by default. Up until the start of the knockout rounds, Krzyzewski was starting five scorers, three of which don't play any defense, and a center who is actually an above-average NBA defender, but who has a specific defensive weakness, one which is easily exploited by the fact the the alleged point guard can't keep his man in front of him.


Quote:
And it's not like teams from the past few Olympics haven't been in close games against teams they've been better than. If it was just this team, I'd buy the "ill-conceived" argument. But I don't think that's it. I just think the NBA players have trouble adjusting to a game that requires they play more of a team game than an individual one.

Well, then, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "ill-conceived" means, in this context, because that's not what it means. Ill-conceived means that there are too many players on the men's team who are only good at doing one thing. It means that there aren't enough players whose skill set lends itself to being effective without the ball in their hands: too many players who lack the ability to play off the ball. It means that there aren't enough players whose skill set complement the other guys on the team: look at DeAndre Jordan, who seems like a great fit for Team USA... he actually is a capable defender, he actually is able to play off the ball, and somehow he still doesn't complement the guys he's playing with. He's a pick-and-roll player, but Kyrie Irving and Kyle Lowry aren't pick-and-roll point guards. Klay Thompson should be a good fit, as a catch-and-shoot player who also plays defense, but what good is having a catch-and-shoot player on the team, if nobody is looking for them on offense? Nobody on this team runs off screens to get open, nobody sets screens to get somebody else open, nobody makes the extra pass. That's not an IQ thing or an ego thing: what you have is ten guys who are accustomed to having teammates do that stuff for them, and don't have enough experience playing in a system where they have to do that for their teammates.

The team is "ill-conceived" because it is not built correctly. You can get away with a "point guard" like Kyrie Irving, when you have another guy in your starting lineup who's going to make all the decisions with the basketball, and all you need Kyrie to do is "get buckets." But Team USA doesn't have one of those, at least not one that Krzyzewski trusts. You also can't send out a starting five that features two guys who are only good at "getting buckets," you need to be more well-rounded.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8332



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 11:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

To equate the men's Olympic team with an NBA team is unfair, I think.

And to say that only a few teams in the NBA play as a team is also unfair. What about Utah and Portland and Memphis and numerous others? They may not have the talent of Golden State, but they are well-coached, intelligent and play as hard as the 100-game (counting playoffs) NBA schedule will allow.

All those assistant coaches on NBA teams aren't just collecting paychecks. I know a guy who did pro scouting and it took him five or six hours to assemble a report after every game. The options are there for individual and team effort, but the hard truth in basketball is this: Talent rules. Idiots like Gilbert Arenas can be effective because of the nature of the sport, just as Tot Byears was. (I think the fact that there are fewer WNBA teams limits the number of dumb players because competition for roster spots is so difficult.)

Last point, again comparing the NBA to the WNBA, not the Olympic teams: There are 30 NBA teams. What if there were 24 WNBA teams? How smart would the league be then?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 11420



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 3:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
To equate the men's Olympic team with an NBA team is unfair, I think.

And to say that only a few teams in the NBA play as a team is also unfair. What about Utah and Portland and Memphis and numerous others? They may not have the talent of Golden State, but they are well-coached, intelligent and play as hard as the 100-game (counting playoffs) NBA schedule will allow.

All those assistant coaches on NBA teams aren't just collecting paychecks. I know a guy who did pro scouting and it took him five or six hours to assemble a report after every game. The options are there for individual and team effort, but the hard truth in basketball is this: Talent rules. Idiots like Gilbert Arenas can be effective because of the nature of the sport, just as Tot Byears was. (I think the fact that there are fewer WNBA teams limits the number of dumb players because competition for roster spots is so difficult.)

Last point, again comparing the NBA to the WNBA, not the Olympic teams: There are 30 NBA teams. What if there were 24 WNBA teams? How smart would the league be then?


How many more boys play basketball than girls? I'd say it's greater than the 2.5:1 ratio of teams in the NBA compared to the WNBA. The talent pool is more limited because not many women grow up playing basketball in the first place.

I don't have an issue with the coaching or scouting. I'm sure the work is intense. It's a multi-million dollar enterprise. My issue is that players make so much more money than the coach, it tends to shift the balance of power toward the players. I thought the article about Bill Laimbeer above pretty clearly demonstrated that.

Baseball to me is pretty similar. I don't watch that either. Also guaranteed contracts, often for players past their prime. Often who make 10-20 times more than the manager. The result? More strikeouts, less bunting, very little in the way of moving runners. Football is by nature a team sport and the only guaranteed money is the bonuses. I watch every Sunday. The NHL is by design and necessity a team sport. Nobody controls the puck long enough for it to be too individualistic. I watch regularly. The WNBA, partially by nature of the athleticism differences, is more fundamentally oriented too. I watch religiously.

My thing is, I think a lot of these players are more limited to one-on-one play than they should be. There's certainly more ball movement in the NBA than we saw in the Olympics, but the lack of player movement without the ball just really lowers my enjoyment of it. Maybe I am overrating that element as one of intelligence. But if it's not an intelligence thing than certainly there's an ego thing at play. The spacing of the 3 point line is partially to blame for that. You won't get as much player movement if you can space the floor wide and still have people score. It's still not for me.



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.


Last edited by NYL_WNBA_FAN on 08/21/16 4:49 pm; edited 2 times in total
NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 11420



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 4:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote:
I'm also not buying the argument that this is an ill-conceived team. It shouldn't be. The point guard just won an NBA title. Draymond Green defers and fits in on Golden State. Doing so here isn't an issue for him. DeAndre Jordan is an upper-echelon role player and one of the few playing his role well. Melo and Durant are hall of fame caliber scorers. The problem the men have is that if you take the defensive three second out of the equation and use 5-man systems against them they struggle to know how to react. Sure they can play 1-on-1 in the NBA, The game is tailor-made for it. Defensive help can't stay in the middle and the three point line is nine miles from the basket. If a team has some shooters, penetrations are going to be readily available.

Rubbish. Removing the defensive three-second rule makes it easier to defend, not harder. You think it's harder to defend when the center doesn't have to clear the lane, and you don't have to leave your assigned area, because you're playing zone? Miss me with that.

The team is poorly constructed, and to make matters worse, the coach isn't using the talent he does have in an optimal manner. Draymond Green should be starting: he's the only guy on the entire men's team who's first instinct when he gets the ball is to look for the open man, and Krzyzewski doesn't even play him. Kyrie Irving is not a point guard: he's just the shortest guy on the team, and is classified as a point guard by default. Up until the start of the knockout rounds, Krzyzewski was starting five scorers, three of which don't play any defense, and a center who is actually an above-average NBA defender, but who has a specific defensive weakness, one which is easily exploited by the fact the the alleged point guard can't keep his man in front of him.


Quote:
And it's not like teams from the past few Olympics haven't been in close games against teams they've been better than. If it was just this team, I'd buy the "ill-conceived" argument. But I don't think that's it. I just think the NBA players have trouble adjusting to a game that requires they play more of a team game than an individual one.

Well, then, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "ill-conceived" means, in this context, because that's not what it means. Ill-conceived means that there are too many players on the men's team who are only good at doing one thing. It means that there aren't enough players whose skill set lends itself to being effective without the ball in their hands: too many players who lack the ability to play off the ball. It means that there aren't enough players whose skill set complement the other guys on the team: look at DeAndre Jordan, who seems like a great fit for Team USA... he actually is a capable defender, he actually is able to play off the ball, and somehow he still doesn't complement the guys he's playing with. He's a pick-and-roll player, but Kyrie Irving and Kyle Lowry aren't pick-and-roll point guards. Klay Thompson should be a good fit, as a catch-and-shoot player who also plays defense, but what good is having a catch-and-shoot player on the team, if nobody is looking for them on offense? Nobody on this team runs off screens to get open, nobody sets screens to get somebody else open, nobody makes the extra pass. That's not an IQ thing or an ego thing: what you have is ten guys who are accustomed to having teammates do that stuff for them, and don't have enough experience playing in a system where they have to do that for their teammates.

The team is "ill-conceived" because it is not built correctly. You can get away with a "point guard" like Kyrie Irving, when you have another guy in your starting lineup who's going to make all the decisions with the basketball, and all you need Kyrie to do is "get buckets." But Team USA doesn't have one of those, at least not one that Krzyzewski trusts. You also can't send out a starting five that features two guys who are only good at "getting buckets," you need to be more well-rounded.



First off, the defensive three second rule makes playing defense harder without a doubt. The vast majority of games not involving team USA have been ridiculously low scoring. While some of that is a talent thing, some of it is undeniably a lack of space for players to penetrate. Do you really think the NBA would have a defensive three second rule if it made it easier to defend? Most centers can stay in the middle without the team playing zone because few opposing centers can shoot. You don't have to play zone for the lack of the rule to come into play. If the rule exists it just makes it much harder to play zone. The defensive 3 second rule is there precisely because allowing one defender to roam free in the lane slows the game down. If defensive 3 seconds made it easier to play defense, the NBA would eliminate the rule in less time than it took me to write this.

As for Kyrie, he's a score-first guard, but he's still the primary (or at worst close second) ball handler from the NBA champions. He's plays on a team with the best player in the world and can still coexist enough to be able to win. To me, the problem is not that all these players can "only do one thing." Many of them only CHOOSE to do one thing. There's a big, big difference. You could "conceive" a team of whatever group of NBA role players you want. It's not likely the style of play would be much different. It's not like moving without the ball is a staple of the NBA. It doesn't have to be. Not for the top players or the second-tier players. It happens on occasion, and some of the top teams do it much better than other teams do. But it's not an NBA staple. The fact that these players don't move without the ball is at the very minimum an ego thing. They don't think they have to, when in fact it would make some of their individual games...and their NBA teams..better. I watched a lot of that OKC-Golden State series. The thing that ultimately did in OKC is the fact that their top players had no concept of how to do anything without the ball in their hands...especially Westbrook. Just because he's a fabulous one-on-one player doesn't mean he can't be better in other facets of the game.

One thing on Clay's discussion of team play, even if 25-30% of the NBA plays as a team, I still see that as an excruciatingly low bar on what we should actually expect from a team sport.



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.


Last edited by NYL_WNBA_FAN on 08/21/16 4:24 pm; edited 3 times in total
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 14410
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 4:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Australia should have been in the final to make it more exciting just like with the women



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
miller40



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 937



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michelle89 wrote:
Australia should have been in the final to make it more exciting just like with the women


I very much doubt the 2016 version of the Opals that was put together would have made it exciting at all.



That was a really nice postgame interview from Melo on NBC.

Still waiting for ESPN to roll out the "Was Team USA's dominant gold medal performance bad for men's basketball" question... Oh wait... Rolling Eyes


Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 399



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 7:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote:
First off, the defensive three second rule makes playing defense harder without a doubt. The vast majority of games not involving team USA have been ridiculously low scoring.

Exactly my point. It's easier to play defense when you don't have to clear the lane. Zone makes everything easier: it's a way to hide the deficiencies of less-talented players.


Quote:
Do you really think the NBA would have a defensive three second rule if it made it easier to defend?

The NBA doesn't want to make defense easier: they instituted a defensive three-second rule in order to increase scoring. And it worked: after about a season and a half adjustment period, the league-wide scoring average has been a minimum two points per game higher than it had been in the period between when Jordan retired, and when the rule was instated, and most years, it's been around 4-6 ppg higher.

Quote:
Most centers can stay in the middle without the team playing zone because few opposing centers can shoot. You don't have to play zone for the lack of the rule to come into play. If the rule exists it just makes it much harder to play zone. The defensive 3 second rule is there precisely because allowing one defender to roam free in the lane slows the game down. If defensive 3 seconds made it easier to play defense, the NBA would eliminate the rule in less time than it took me to write this.

Hey, you're the one who implied that the lack of a defensive three-second rule in Olympic play is making it harder for Team USA to play defense, not me.

Quote:
As for Kyrie, he's a score-first guard, but he's still the primary (or at worst close second) ball handler from the NBA champions. He's plays on a team with the best player in the world and can still coexist enough to be able to win. To me, the problem is not that all these players can "only do one thing." Many of them only CHOOSE to do one thing. There's a big, big difference.

That would be a big difference, and the only problem with it is that it's not true. For as much as you want to believe that these guys aren't coachable, they have developed the skills and habits that they have been coached into. These are guys that are told to get the ball, wait for the double team, and then make a play: they haven't been properly coached on how to let somebody else make a play for them.

Quote:
You could "conceive" a team of whatever group of NBA role players you want. It's not likely the style of play would be much different.

I bet you lunch you're wrong.

Quote:
It's not like moving without the ball is a staple of the NBA. It doesn't have to be. Not for the top players or the second-tier players. It happens on occasion, and some of the top teams do it much better than other teams do. But it's not an NBA staple.

The point isn't whether or not it's a "staple," the point is that USAB could easily put together a team of twelve NBA players that are better suited to playing the international style than the twelve they usually come up with.

Quote:
The fact that these players don't move without the ball is at the very minimum an ego thing. They don't think they have to, when in fact it would make some of their individual games...and their NBA teams..better. I watched a lot of that OKC-Golden State series. The thing that ultimately did in OKC is the fact that their top players had no concept of how to do anything without the ball in their hands...especially Westbrook. Just because he's a fabulous one-on-one player doesn't mean he can't be better in other facets of the game.

We agree on the latter, mileage varies on the former. I'm getting a lot of #IHateTheNBA coming off of your posts, which makes it difficult to read them objectively.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 11420



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 8:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote:
First off, the defensive three second rule makes playing defense harder without a doubt. The vast majority of games not involving team USA have been ridiculously low scoring.

Exactly my point. It's easier to play defense when you don't have to clear the lane. Zone makes everything easier: it's a way to hide the deficiencies of less-talented players.


Quote:
Do you really think the NBA would have a defensive three second rule if it made it easier to defend?

The NBA doesn't want to make defense easier: they instituted a defensive three-second rule in order to increase scoring. And it worked: after about a season and a half adjustment period, the league-wide scoring average has been a minimum two points per game higher than it had been in the period between when Jordan retired, and when the rule was instated, and most years, it's been around 4-6 ppg higher.

Quote:
Most centers can stay in the middle without the team playing zone because few opposing centers can shoot. You don't have to play zone for the lack of the rule to come into play. If the rule exists it just makes it much harder to play zone. The defensive 3 second rule is there precisely because allowing one defender to roam free in the lane slows the game down. If defensive 3 seconds made it easier to play defense, the NBA would eliminate the rule in less time than it took me to write this.

Hey, you're the one who implied that the lack of a defensive three-second rule in Olympic play is making it harder for Team USA to play defense, not me.

Quote:
As for Kyrie, he's a score-first guard, but he's still the primary (or at worst close second) ball handler from the NBA champions. He's plays on a team with the best player in the world and can still coexist enough to be able to win. To me, the problem is not that all these players can "only do one thing." Many of them only CHOOSE to do one thing. There's a big, big difference.

That would be a big difference, and the only problem with it is that it's not true. For as much as you want to believe that these guys aren't coachable, they have developed the skills and habits that they have been coached into. These are guys that are told to get the ball, wait for the double team, and then make a play: they haven't been properly coached on how to let somebody else make a play for them.

Quote:
You could "conceive" a team of whatever group of NBA role players you want. It's not likely the style of play would be much different.

I bet you lunch you're wrong.

Quote:
It's not like moving without the ball is a staple of the NBA. It doesn't have to be. Not for the top players or the second-tier players. It happens on occasion, and some of the top teams do it much better than other teams do. But it's not an NBA staple.

The point isn't whether or not it's a "staple," the point is that USAB could easily put together a team of twelve NBA players that are better suited to playing the international style than the twelve they usually come up with.

Quote:
The fact that these players don't move without the ball is at the very minimum an ego thing. They don't think they have to, when in fact it would make some of their individual games...and their NBA teams..better. I watched a lot of that OKC-Golden State series. The thing that ultimately did in OKC is the fact that their top players had no concept of how to do anything without the ball in their hands...especially Westbrook. Just because he's a fabulous one-on-one player doesn't mean he can't be better in other facets of the game.

We agree on the latter, mileage varies on the former. I'm getting a lot of #IHateTheNBA coming off of your posts, which makes it difficult to read them objectively.


You misread my initial post. In turn I misread yours. I never attempted to imply that the defensive three second rule made it harder to play defense. I thought I stated pretty clearly in an earlier post that the defensive three second rule makes it harder for teams to penetrate, which is why for stretches the US offensive game was experiencing difficulty reading the defenses. And often found itself reliant on offensive rebounds and points off of turnovers to create fastbreaks.

In turn I misread yours because I couldn't understand why anyone would disagree that the defensive three second rule makes defense harder. I meant the US players had trouble reacting to that on offense.

Just to be clear. I used to love the NBA. I watched Jordan, Pippen, Barkley, Stockton, Malone, etc. Some of those Pistons teams really played the team game well.

I don't "hate" the NBA, though I certainly dislike how today's NBA is played. And you're arguing that these players need to be "coached" on how to move without the ball and play without the ball in their hands. The problem with that is they make megabucks more than the coach. Any coach who tries to use that approach is likely a coach on his way to getting replaced. David Blatt wanted a triangle offense. A system with a lot of player movement. LeBron pretty much disrespected him for his entire tenure, and LeBron is a player I respect for ball sharing, IQ and team play. I'll watch teams that play with a higher level of understanding of the game and respect it. But it also shows how resistant upper-echelon NBA players can to be playing away from the ball. It's not a lack of coaching. It's that the player runs the show, and a good coach learns to work within that framework to maintain as much authority as possible while still allowing the player some freedom. It works with LeBron and Lue. It worked with Jordan and Phil Jackson. But if you think that the players aren't the ones who dictate how much power a coach has, you're fooling yourself. That's why the NFL is somewhat different. Yes, there's some bad apples who might get a second or third chance because of immense talent. But the NFL has two things that give coaches much more power. Non-guaranteed contracts (outside of the signing bonus) and an essential need for coordinated team play. Hence, I still watch. I don't love that system, but one thing it accomplishes is to make sure players remain accountable to the team and the system. If not, they won't last long and it won't matter how good they are.

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/cleveland-cavaliers-fire-david-blatt-lebron-james-shamed-nba-finals-012216

But it speaks to a higher point, for me. It's hard to really like a sport where the players make so much more than the coach that they have more power than a coach. They're not very likely to be responsive to things like moving without the ball. And for me personally, this stems from AAU on forward. Players should have some understanding of how to move without the ball before they get to the NBA, and from there it can be coached up according to a system of play. It's a basic skill. It's not the theory of relativity.

Even in 2012, with LeBron and Kobe, team USA had two close calls against teams they should have easily beaten. I don't think this is just a 2016 USA team phenomenon. The wider spacing around the 3 point line has largely removed movement off the ball and passing and cutting.

Oh, and don't believe me about today's players generally (with some exceptions) lacking the capacity to 5-man basketball? One of the greatest coaches in NBA history agrees:

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/phil-jackson-modern-nba-players-lack-skills-play-triangle/#35YZGE4AgHsHuvFZ.97

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/knicks-carmelo-anthony-phil-jackson-triangle-offense-nba-players-lack-skills-072916



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 14410
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/16 10:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

miller40 wrote:
Michelle89 wrote:
Australia should have been in the final to make it more exciting just like with the women


I very much doubt the 2016 version of the Opals that was put together would have made it exciting at all.



That was a really nice postgame interview from Melo on NBC.

Still waiting for ESPN to roll out the "Was Team USA's dominant gold medal performance bad for men's basketball" question... Oh wait... Rolling Eyes


They made it exciting when they played against each other a couple weeks earlier..



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8332



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/16 10:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Just a thought: By far the most effective play in basketball is the pick-and-roll, especially with defensive three seconds.

Therefore, every NBA player is extremely well-versed in the nuances of running the pick-and-roll, which is almost always a two-man termination game.

The reason they're coached this way, and taught the pick-and-roll, is because that's the best way to win. (As a high school girls' coach, I had two simple strategies: Shoot the three so they can't zone us; and when they go man, pick-and-roll.)

My take on this is that if pretty basketball were indeed the best and most efficient basketball -- remember how much money is at stake in the NBA -- we would see a lot more of it. We do see movement off the ball in the NBA, and that was an issue with the Olympic team, but you can't change players' styles in a few weeks. You have to dance with who brung you, and that's pick-and-roll and one-on-one domination.

That's the best way to win in any game of basketball, male or female. And please note that the U.S. went 16-0.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18537



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/16 10:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Just a thought: By far the most effective play in basketball is the pick-and-roll, especially with defensive three seconds.

Therefore, every NBA player is extremely well-versed in the nuances of running the pick-and-roll, which is almost always a two-man termination game.

The reason they're coached this way, and taught the pick-and-roll, is because that's the best way to win. (As a high school girls' coach, I had two simple strategies: Shoot the three so they can't zone us; and when they go man, pick-and-roll.)

My take on this is that if pretty basketball were indeed the best and most efficient basketball -- remember how much money is at stake in the NBA -- we would see a lot more of it. We do see movement off the ball in the NBA, and that was an issue with the Olympic team, but you can't change players' styles in a few weeks. You have to dance with who brung you, and that's pick-and-roll and one-on-one domination.

That's the best way to win in any game of basketball, male or female. And please note that the U.S. went 16-0.


That would employ five quality players on the court at the same time, something the NBA tends to be lacking in places. Two man game evolved because the two best players have the ball in their hands. In international play, we have five great players on the court for USA, and other countries trust their players more than NBA teams trust theirs.


NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 11420



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/16 5:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Just want to say first off I respect all sides of what is a reasonably thought out argument from all who have posted.

I think the idea of the pick and roll as a primary means of offensive attack is a good one. Even the WNBA has far more pick and roll then it had in its formative years, due to the upgrade in talent and athleticism. I accept that as a means to an end in terms of efficiency. What I don't understand is why that has to be so often the only means to an end. I watched quite a bit of the NBA finals. The tide of that series turned toward the Cavs when the Cavs bounced Curry all over the court and savagely attacked him on the numerous high on-ball screens the Warriors employed. That's where I would have liked to have seen more off-the-ball play utilized, with offense initiating in a wider variety of positions.

I think Clay is correct about the pick and roll being a primary means of attacking a defense, especially with the defensive three second rule. I also agree with David, that its increased emphasis has been the result of emphasizing ways for the elite players on teams to score.

What I don't understand is why other methods of scoring aren't utilized more frequently when either pick and roll opportunities aren't as available or when teams have a talent gap compared to other teams.

I know the WNBA is an entirely different entity, but one of the things I like about the Liberty and how they are coached is how they seem to get the most out of their talent, and a heavy portion of that is off-the-ball movement, particularly on plays where Tina initiates offense. This year the Liberty are 18-8, with a basketball reference expected W/L of 15-11. Last year they were 23-11 with an expected W/L of 21-13. One of the ways they get the most out of what has not been an elite level of talent is through off-the-ball play. Obviously their defense is very good and their offense is only approaching average. But they've also gotten a lot of mileage out of certain personnel.

So I'd ask...can't some of the lesser teams vary up their games better to try and close the talent gap? Can't teams struggling with on-ball oriented sets vary them up a little better?

Tell you this. If the NBA eliminated defensive 3 seconds I would watch again. It would force teams and players to be more judicious about how and when to penetrate.



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17746



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/16 10:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I thought this tweet was funny

Rich Nye
Paul George making #SRB feel like #RyanLochte at a Brazilian gas station.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Olympics All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin