 |
APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Analyze This
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 364
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | | I guess on this original point that you made here, we now agree. The Dream Team shot free throws better than the current Team USA. The current Team USA shot NBA three pointers better than the Dream Team. Clearly, there are broader points that you want to make, but I was never arguing about those broader points.. |
The point that I want to make is: The USA has a lot of players who use their athletic abilities (speed, power) more than some fundamentals to dominate. If all of these athletes also would be fundamentally at the highest level ( efficient distance shooting, excellent ft shooting, good defense,..) the USA would be unbeatable. In my opinion a lot of the USA stars are not as fundamently sound as in the past. Some international players are already better. And in the athletic department the difference is also getting smaller. | Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | | I think that if you take those original Dream Team members and get them at the ages the current Team USA players are and have them play against current international teams, I think there would be a good chance that they would lose too. . |
No way. | Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | | But that analysis is including international players in the mix when comparing the different generations of NBA players. And so I think the conclusion could be that the influx of international players along with a promising generation of young American players has led a young generation of NBA players that is comparable to the Dream Team generation. . |
That could be true. But that also means that if you subtract the international players the Americans are not as good as they used to be in the past. Because if we follow you they need the international influx to get to the level of the dream team generation | Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | You want to use that fact to disparage American players, but I see that as a good thing for the NBA in the long run. International interest in the NBA is growing far more rapidly than interest within the U.S., and I would imagine that is the big area that is fueling the resurging revenue growth in the NBA. I think that is great.
But go ahead and disparage American players all that you want. If that makes you feel better, I cannot stop that. |
I like the nba. Especially the 60's and 80's. You got no (or almost no) foreigners then. Only Americans played in the nba. Do you really think that I collect 100's of game dvd's and possess 213 nba books of which 80 % or more have only American players in it, but I don't like the American players in the nba. You're wrong. What I would like is that USA basketball stops making excuses, and makes changes that lead to fundamently better basketball players. If the Americans combine the basketball qualities that were more important/ better in the past with the superior athleticism of the current players that will be a good thing for other countries. Because then again the rest of the world can try to catch the USA. Nowadays you need to catch the competition and not the otherway around. And with every excuse you make you are getting further behind. Because you don't deal with the real problems and the rest of the world is not standing still. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kevin Pelton
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 979
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | | I think that if you take those original Dream Team members and get them at the ages the current Team USA players are and have them play against current international teams, I think there would be a good chance that they would lose too. |
I don't agree with this, Dan, but I don't think it matters.
The Dream Team was a fluke, an exception, an outlier. Nobody turned down the Dream Team, nobody wasn't picked because they had done it before, etc. Because the concept of professionals playing was new, it was totally different than any subsequent team. You can't compare any other team to the Dream Team; that's why it's freaking called the Dream Team.
Because of the U.S.'s early success internationally with professionals, a mentality developed that being on a USA Basketball team as a professional was a privilege that should be passed around. Even had they wanted to, I don't think many players could have repeated on an Olympic/Worlds team through 2002. That's a key reason the U.S. teams we see now that that mentality has had to change have little cohesion.
On a slightly different note: How much does race continue to be an elephant in the room in any discussion of USA Basketball? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asimpkins
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 245
Location: Pleasanton, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Analyze This wrote: | | Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | | I think that if you take those original Dream Team members and get them at the ages the current Team USA players are and have them play against current international teams, I think there would be a good chance that they would lose too. . |
No way. |
You did catch that he said at the current team's ages, right? We're talking about 20-22 years old for much of the team and far from their primes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Analyze This
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asimpkins wrote: | | Analyze This wrote: | | Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | | I think that if you take those original Dream Team members and get them at the ages the current Team USA players are and have them play against current international teams, I think there would be a good chance that they would lose too. . |
No way. |
You did catch that he said at the current team's ages, right? We're talking about 20-22 years old for much of the team and far from their primes. |
I did catch that and the average age was 25. To avoid stuff like player X just had his birthday and player Y next month I looked to the year (and not the month or day). Did you catch that Magic his last nba year before his short comeback was 1991 and that the original dream team played in 1992? I'm sure you catched that Bird his last nba year was 1992 and because of back injuries he was not half the player he once was when the original dream team took the court. If the original Dream team would have played a couple of years sooner they would have been much better. Just like the lost to Greece team will improve. But 2 empty roster spaces will not develop themselves to quality centers like David Robinson or Patrick Ewing. I seriously doubt that Carmelo Anthony will be a top defender in 2 years from know. I have my doubts that Howard will become the next Karl Malone, with a nice 2 point mid range jump shot. Will Wade develop a mid range jump shot. I don't know we will see. How good will Paul become? We will see. And LJ? But players like Battier, Jamison and Miller are already almost at their peak or we have already seen the best. I don't believe that these players will develop their fundamentals that way that you can compare them with the original dream team.
The first time the usa lost with nba players it was because some players refused a selection. The second time it was because you had no roster stability and it were the wrong players for fiba basketball. The third time it seems that the winner of all the excuses will be that it was because the players have not yet reached their prime. What will it be in china... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Analyze This
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | On a slightly different note: How much does race continue to be an elephant in the room in any discussion of USA Basketball? |
What do you mean exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Pelton
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 979
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Analyze This wrote: | | admin wrote: | | On a slightly different note: How much does race continue to be an elephant in the room in any discussion of USA Basketball? |
What do you mean exactly? |
The U.S. team is primarily composed of African-Americans. There is a long-running, pervasive stereotype that African-Americans play a style of basketball that is less fundamental than Caucasians.
Surely, much as we might like to think it is not, this is a subtext in any discussion of USA Basketball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Analyze This
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | The U.S. team is primarily composed of African-Americans. There is a long-running, pervasive stereotype that African-Americans play a style of basketball that is less fundamental than Caucasians. Surely, much as we might like to think it is not, this is a subtext in any discussion of USA Basketball. |
Ok, I thought that you were referring to that but I wanted to be sure. I don't think that the color of your skinn has something to do with your ability to learn basketball fundamentals. So if you assumed that I think that the basketball fundamentals of the American players dropped because of the majority is afro-american you are wrong. When the original dream team played the majority of the players also was african american. Ewing and Malone, had a good jumper and they were black. Jordan was a good ft shooter and he was black. And I can go on. And I also don't think that the african-americans play a style that is less fundamental because of their sub culture or something like that. I think that American basketball is a black man's game for a white man's audience. They just imitate what the tv shows.
Last edited by Analyze This on Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | Analyze This wrote: | | admin wrote: | | On a slightly different note: How much does race continue to be an elephant in the room in any discussion of USA Basketball? |
What do you mean exactly? |
The U.S. team is primarily composed of African-Americans. There is a long-running, pervasive stereotype that African-Americans play a style of basketball that is less fundamental than Caucasians.
Surely, much as we might like to think it is not, this is a subtext in any discussion of USA Basketball. |
It's just a silly subtext. Race is not a cause. I'm not even sure it's established as correlated. You can't change race. Race doesn't prevent someone from learning fundamentals. Ultimately, The Game dictates what succeeds. The Game is slightly different in the US than in international ball, but different enough to matter. Whether we sent the team we sent or another one with a different racial makeup, we as players of the NBA (or even college ball, which is a bit more similar to FIBA) would still have had a handicap to overcome that has been created by rules that benefit more isolation, more post-ups, more athleticism. We have some of the best basketball players on the planet. I think that the players on this team have some great fundamentals (haven't people been saying that the reason Lebron is so great is because he combines his athleticism with fundamentals?), but also habits formed by an NBA game that can hurt in the international game.
Usually the elephant in the room is a changeable cause of some of the problems in that room. I don't see race as that elephant.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Analyze This
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HoopStudies wrote: |
The Game is slightly different in the US than in international ball, but different enough to matter. We as players of the NBA would still have had a handicap to overcome that has been created by rules that benefit more isolation, more post-ups, more athleticism. We have some of the best basketball players on the planet. I think that the players on this team have some great fundamentals (haven't people been saying that the reason Lebron is so great is because he combines his athleticism with fundamentals?), but also habits formed by an NBA game that can hurt in the international game.
|
The international rules don't forbid to be athletic on the court. They don't give you a disadvantage when you go one on one. They don't punish players who use their speed to go to the ring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Analyze This wrote: | | HoopStudies wrote: |
The Game is slightly different in the US than in international ball, but different enough to matter. We as players of the NBA would still have had a handicap to overcome that has been created by rules that benefit more isolation, more post-ups, more athleticism. We have some of the best basketball players on the planet. I think that the players on this team have some great fundamentals (haven't people been saying that the reason Lebron is so great is because he combines his athleticism with fundamentals?), but also habits formed by an NBA game that can hurt in the international game.
|
The international rules don't forbid to be athletic on the court. They don't give you a disadvantage when you go one on one. They don't punish players who use their speed to go to the ring. |
Now you are just being petulant. Are you saying that if FIBA had played under NBA rules with its (a) longer 3-point line, (b) 48 minute games, (c) defensive three second rule, (d) rectangular lane, (e) restricted zone, (f) increased number of moving screens called, that would not have made any difference. Seriously, is that the argument you are making?
You can call those excuses, but rules matter. In the past the allowance of hand checks allowed physical defensive teams like Detroit and New York to succeed, while the recent change in that rule has made players like Gilbert Arenas, LeBron James, and Dwyane Wade more deadly. Of course, they probably could have moved the rim up to 12 feet and the Dream Team probably still would have won in 1992, but when the disparity gets less all of these differences have to come into play.
And players adjust their games to fit those rules. NBA players don't practice shots from the international three point line, because in the NBA that is a terrible shot. Are you claiming that practice does not matter and the fact that NBA players practice the international three far less than internationals does not matter? NBA players play more isolation because the NBA defensive rules make it difficult to defend isolation plays.
You may not like the NBA rules and that is fine, but NBA players are paid millions to hone their skills under the NBA rules. So it is any surprise that there are some warts when they move to a different set of rules?
Last edited by Dan Rosenbaum on Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hpanic7342
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 201
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Analyze This has been petulant throughout this entire thread. Of the many, many posts he's made, he's used numbers to back his wild claims once. I think it's time to start considering him a troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Analyze This
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Rosenbaum wrote: |
Now you are just being petulant. Are you saying that if FIBA had played under NBA rules with its (a) longer 3-point line, (b) 48 minute games, (c) defensive three second rule, (d) rectangular lane, (e) restricted zone, (f) increased number of moving screens called, that would not have made any difference. Seriously, is that the argument you are making? |
Every rule change has an impact. So of course I'm not saying that. I stated that the international rules don't necesarry punish you if you are a good one on one player, or when you have superior athletic abilities. A player like Wade did well. And he is the prototype of the quick player who attacks the paint. Howard was a beast on the boards, just as in the nba.
A lot of people talk about the disadvantage that the international rules cause. Why not become concrete, show me in detail. And I would like to ask if the international rules can also have advantages for the Americans? Look to the 3p % of Anthony. It was not quite the same as in the nba was it.
| Dan Rosenbaum wrote: | | You can call those excuses, but rules matter. In the past the allowance of hand checks allowed physical defensive teams like Detroit and New York to succeed, while the recent change in that rule has made players like Gilbert Arenas, LeBron James, and Dwyane Wade more deadly. |
I agree with you. And I wonder why they did it. The scores were down. Are they thinking people close to the rim (c and pf's) were a lot of the time the most efficient scorers in the past. We have a shortage in that department. People like to see spectacular moves by smaller penetrating players. Going to the rim with a spectacular dunk will do it. The smaller players don't have easy acces to the paint because of the defense. They don't score as efficient as in the past with for example the mid range jumper. We will prevent these defenses to stop the small penetrating players. If they get closer to the rim they will score more efficient. The scores will go up. Problem solved. And will the result be that C's and pf's get more "easy" fouls, are more on the bench and become less valuable than an athletic quick player who can penetrate the paint? If so this will only make the center problem of the USA bigger. If the heros are the Wades of the world who wants to be the next Duncan. And would it not be a better idea to get more players who hit the mid range jumper. Perhaps more passing, and less dribbling, more team play and less one on ones would improve the quality of the fg attempts. Perhaps the scores would go up that way. Is it no so that the no hand check rule is the easy way out.
Last edited by Analyze This on Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:42 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 807
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having different perspectives can yield more understanding than just one and in case I think the two sides can be largely integrated.
Last edited by Mark on Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:42 pm; edited 9 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 499
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are the rosters of the Dream Team and the 2006 WC team and the players' ages, for comparison's sake:
Dream Team
| Code: | Charles Barkley 29
Larry Bird 35
Clyde Drexler 30
Patrick Ewing 29
Magic Johnson 31
Michael Jordan 29
Christian Laettner 23
Karl Malone 29
Chris Mullin 29
Scottie Pippen 26
David Robinson 26
John Stockton 30 |
2006 WC Team
| Code: | Carmelo Anthony 22
Shane Battier 28
Chris Bosh 22
Elton Brand 27
Kirk Hinrich 25
Dwight Howard 20
LeBron James 21
Antawn Jamison 30
Joe Johnson 25
Brad Miller 30
Chris Paul 21
Dwyane Wade 24 |
Observations/thoughts:
- Almost half of the current team is still young enough to be in college. For some reason, no one thinks this matters. I've certainly heard no mention of it in the media.
- Aside from James, Wade, and Brand, these are not first-class NBA players, on the level of Duncan, Garnett, Bryant, etc. And if you want to argue Anthony, Bosh, or Paul, that's fine, but I don't see it.
- If you took the Dream Team as they were from 1988 (that is, the 1988 Barkley, the 1988 Bird, etc.), they might not have lost. I'd say the odds were still against them losing. However, it seems reasonable to think that they wouldn't have been nearly as dominant as they were. Four years is a long time to develop in athletic terms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3605
Location: Hendersonville, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whether or not 'petulant' is exactly the right description, it seems to be coming from more than one person. If 'fundamentals' are the crux of the FIBA advantage, then I'd suggest that what is fundamental to NBA ball is just not exactly what's fundamental in FIBA.
More-athletic players have less need of coaching, in order to just make the team -- in high school, and somewhat, in college. At any level, the more you have and the more you learn are always to your advantage.
An unathletic player has to accept coaching, learn, work hard, and think clearly on the floor. The athletic player who also does these things will always be better.
When an unathletic team beats a (relatively) athletic team, it's almost always because of better 'fundamentals' -- within the rules of that game. There are some white guys with 'hops' or 'handles' who are underachievers in the pros. Chances are, they weren't the most coachable guys.
There's nothing causal in a rise in 'blackness' in the NBA and a dropoff in 'fundamentals'. Some athletic players are in the league without fundamentals because it's possible to teach them; harder to teach quickness, coordination, or physique.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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 © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
