APBRmetrics Forum Index APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Four Factors - 3 Problems
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    APBRmetrics Forum Index -> General discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
B Purist



Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:12 am    Post subject: Four Factors - 3 Problems Reply with quote

Four Factors - 3 Problems - Smart Basketball

Four factor ratings, numerous individual statistics and differentials (points) summarize how well teams and specific players perform the basics of the game. Statistical analysts are adept at examining team performance and breaking it down into the positive and negative contributions of individuals to teamwork and overall results. Those that look at the game from this perspective have many formulas and rules of thumb that can show the gains of better execution in the areas of offense, defense and rebounding. When the equations are manipulated to reflect improved execution and higher levels of efficiency, the contributions of more hoops, more stops and more boards to winning are irrefutable.

Theories that rebounding equals rings and defense wins titles miss the bottom line.

“Fundamentals Win Championships”
John De Francisco

Sound fundamentals and proper technique can neutralize the strengths and exploit the weaknesses of any team or player.

The quality of NBA basketball has regressed. NBA players of the Hip-hop generation have been influenced by ESPN dunk highlights and And1 street ball mix-tapes that have glorified style over substance. There are universal problems and glaring weaknesses in the current style of basketball.

A dozen years ago, I framed the three biggest and most repulsive problems in the NBA as:

1) Athleticism is at an all-time high and Basketball IQ is at an all-time low. Far too many players lack a fundamental understanding of how to play the game.
2) There is an epidemic of selfish and undisciplined play with poor shot selection.
3) Minimum Effort Basketball [(MEB), an acronym and phrase coined by John De Francisco] is repulsive and it disrespects the very essence of the game of basketball.

It turns out that Problem 1 is the be-all and end-all. Though Problems 2 and 3 are distinct, unique and serious, they can be looked at as by-products and consequences of lower Basketball IQ.

When I give coaching clinics and talk about the problems and my work on Basketball IQ, hundreds of coaches have tended to unanimously agree with the positions. It is rare that there is not dissent in the coaching community but the concept of playing smart, hard and together is universally accepted. Twelve year olds, amateur Red Auerbachs that never coached a team in their lives, and experts on bar stools across the land also concur.

LOW BASKETBALL IQ = NOT PLAYING SMART = LOSING
MEB = NO HUSTLE = NO HEART
PLAYING SMART = PLAYING HARD AND PLAYING TOGETHER = WINNING
John De Francisco

There are varying degrees of smart, hard and together, and presently no team in the NBA can lay claim to being the best in all the three areas.

It is possible for a team to be:

A.) the best executing and most fundamentally sound team
B.) the most intelligent and best prepared team
C.) the hardest working, most spirited, enthusiastic and toughest team
D.) the most unselfish and disciplined team with the best shot selection

These areas of the game are clearly difference makers that are independent of physical talent and basketball skill. A through D are components of intelligent winning basketball and as with problems 1-3, no NBA team is clearly the best in all four categories. The inclusion of Basketball IQ as a factor in almost all off-court (senior management) and on-court (coaching) decisions will yield better results.

The deficiencies of USA (NBA - lower IQ) basketball were exposed in the last three major international competitions. Since 2002, Team USA lost 8 games to 7 different teams (Argentina twice). What is most astonishing is that international teams from 12 different countries gave the NBA squads trouble and were in a position to pull off the upset. A through D played a role in execution consistently prevailing over talent.

Lesser athletes on the international teams used techniques of good team defense to effectively counter the NBA’s finest offensive players. When Team USA opponents ran their offenses, they repeatedly demonstrated how good shooting, passing and dribbling can capitalize on the mistakes of a more athletic (bigger, faster and better jumping) defense. The common denominator in the performances of the international teams was that they used intelligent play and sound fundamentals to shrink the talent gap and overcome disadvantages. The results were not a fluke or new phenomena but rather a testament to the significance of execution in the moving chess game of basketball.

The talent gap that international teams face when playing Team USA is astronomically larger then the talent gap that the NBA’s worst teams must overcome when they take on the NBA’s better squads in regular season action. One of the biggest nightmares that a coach can have is to be handicapped by a small, non-athletic roster with below average talent and substandard basketball skills. High quality execution is such a great equalizer that the worst NBA teams can overcome severe weaknesses and routinely win regular season games with consistent effective use of sound basketball fundamentals.

In the aftermath of the last three international competitions, there is new excitement and motivation among all NBA coaches and organizations to make upgrading execution an even bigger priority. The merit, value and evidence are so irrefutable that everyone is on a player development and basketball education mission. It has been shown that there is a practical formula to consistently defeating superior opponents. The failures of Team USA could be interpreted to mean the NBA does not have to be a “player’s league” or so called “talent league”. The belief that it requires a roster with two or three All Stars to compete for an NBA title can be questioned. NBA coaches realize that they can expand team and individual capabilities by raising basketball IQ. Teams can play better games and win more often without changing the people on the roster.

NBA teams do not face a stacked deck on the scale of the Team USA bomb squad that international teams took down. The NBA has successfully instituted regulations to promote parity and that parity represents opportunity. The league is more balanced than ever. Talent gaps are smaller and margins of victory are smaller. Miracle finishes and tight games are a common occurrence. The 2006 NBA playoffs had a historic number of close (1point, 2point and overtime) games. With parity, it does not take as much talent to prevail and prospects for busting the curve are increased.

If the coach of an NBA team can remedy the three biggest NBA problems and have success in upgrading areas A through D, then his team will make phenomenal progress. The benefits of the coaching adjustments and improved execution can be statistically quantified. The transformation of the team will show prominently in better efficiency ratings and they could win far more games than anyone expects. Issues of low basketball IQ and flawed fundamentals are a problem for every team in the league and even the very best teams in the league have weaknesses that can be exploited. It is conceivable that a team that is not in the upper tier (top 4 or 5 teams) of title contenders could shock the world and knock off a couple of giants to win an NBA Championship. Basketball is a simple game if it is played the right way and the day will come when a Cinderella team takes the crown.

When the problems are outlined at my coaching clinics, the coaches behave as though I am preaching to the choir. At the conclusion of the presentation, I shock them with a bomb that drops jaws and changes their tone. When examining the blame pie of accountability for lower Basketball IQ, it is apparent that coaches must accept a good share of the responsibility.

The NBA has the best coaches and finest basketball instructors in the world, but the Basketball IQ problem is a gigantic and complex coaching obstacle. NBA coaches are under pressure (self-imposed or not) to win right away and teams are handicapped by a shortage of complete fundamentally sound players. Coaching staffs have to work with or work around players with many flaws.

All teams (coaches, players, senior management, ownership etc) seek the ideal formula to maximize performance and surpass expectations. Team success and advancing to the next level or beyond is a top priority. Prior to the start of every season all teams hope to be the most improved team in the league. All teams want progress. They want more victories and are in a hurry to get them. Championship cycles and windows of opportunity can be short-lived, so the development process must be speeded up. Generally, slow and steady does not lead to a quick enough improvement to seize opportunities.

The dilemmas posed by current players have baffled and confused NBA coaches. Undoing bad habits is a challenging task for even the finest coaches. It is incredibly difficult to reverse deep-seated thought processes and patterns committed to muscle memory. There are reasons why the universal problems, damaging deficiencies and unmet needs have not been remedied. With little variance, organizations are essentially using the same formula. With minor differences, coaches are using the same systems, the same explanations, the same drill sets, and rely on the same old (key word old) teaching methods that have always been used. Conventional methods for undoing bad habits to improve flawed fundamentals and generate better execution are not producing the desired result. Traditional, tried and true approaches to coaching, motivating and disciplining are not working with this generation of NBA player. There are tremendous opportunities for advancement because business as usual has not negated the declining trends in NBA basketball.

If there are no secrets in basketball, then everyone is in the same boat and there should be no bigger priority than searching for better ways to coach under-educated and fundamentally deficient players. Success or failure in player development revolves around the total plan and the specific methods chosen. The need for basketball innovation is apparent. The manner in which players are managed, directed and taught must be adjusted and modified. New problems in the moving chess game will require new methods for solutions.

Team USA struggled and under-performed because they did not have an effective response to counter high quality execution. If an NBA coach can succeed at raising basketball IQ and improve execution to the level of the international teams that beat the US, he will have the keys to the candy store and his team will be transformed into the most improved in the league. The team will have a competitive advantage that translates into extra victories in the playoffs when the games are more meaningful.

An NBA Hall of Famer said that “a great coach believes he can come up with an offense or defense that nobody has ever seen before. He also believes that he can get more out of a group of players than anyone else can.”

THE SOLUTIONS:
NEW AND BETTER METHODS EXIST

The problems of low Basketball IQ, selfish and undisciplined basketball with poor shot selection, and minimum effort basketball (MEB) can all be remedied. Intelligent basketball, winning team basketball, and championship basketball can be taught. Individual skills and team performance can be improved and NBA teams can play smart, hard and together.

Raising Basketball IQ to improve execution is a function of what is taught and how it is taught. My obsession with the concept of consistently defeating superior opponents (CDSO) and maximizing performance in the areas of offense, defense and rebounding led to the development of basketball advancements. New paradigms in coaching are built around a pragmatic and systematic approach to perfecting execution. A comprehensive program for effective player development and education results in an intelligent and committed work force that strengthens the organization.

The program for raising Basketball IQ centers on innovations that result in unsurpassed instruction and development. The approach to teaching is unrivaled because the methods, techniques, explanations, drills and systems are new and better. In totality, they capture, depict and convey every necessary attribute of the skill that is being taught, while also showing the logic and benefit to the individual and the team. New and better explanations and drill sets break down issues into the essence of their elements in a step-by-step process. All material is simplified to the nth degree for clarity so that there is no room for confusion or misunderstanding. The messages are designed and delivered in a manner that makes it easy for players to grasp and master the desired techniques.

The time required to achieve results is an important consideration in all coaching and training programs. The innovations in unsurpassed instruction and development accelerate the process. The methods are so effective that they save time by requiring fewer supplemental drills and fewer repetitions. The practices are more fun for the players because there is less redundancy. The coach will have more available time to use on areas that he selects for special focus.

The Mastery of Offense Clinic is subtitled, The definitive solution to selfish and undisciplined basketball with poor shot selection. The golden rule of offense is the key to successfully executing any offense.

Unique and dynamic new drills in the hustle category are a major component in the elimination of MEB. Extraordinary change agents remove objections, resistance, negativity, and insubordination.

John De Francisco
The Basketball Purist Inc.
Bpurist@aol.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jkubatko



Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 508
Location: Columbus, OH

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching an infomercial every time I read one of these posts?
_________________
Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball Stats!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
supersub15



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 81

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkubatko wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching an infomercial every time I read one of these posts?


For the first time ever on this board, I'll use this emoticon: Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
94by50



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 403
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe it's to my detriment, but the chances of getting through any forum post decrease exponentially with the number of times I have to hit the "Page Down" button.

Don't "basketball IQ", selfish and undisciplined play, and minimum effort all go hand-in-hand, pretty much? At least, don't they all offer the same results?

Also, I get the feeling the Spurs would bristle at the idea that they aren't the best executing, most fundamentally sound, intelligent, best prepared - heck, just the best team in the league. If any team embodies those principles, it's San Antonio, because their best player (who also happens to be the best player in the world - purely opinion) embodies all those principles, as well.

USA Basketball seems to have gotten the message that "fundamentals" are important - or at least, that a well-rounded, carefully constructed team is important. Also, when we have sent second-rate teams to international competition, that was because the first-rate players all bowed out.

To answer the general point of the post - that basketball IQ in America is suffering. I have faith that the requirement that players be a year out of high school (thus resulting in all of them playing in college) will do a good deal to solve that problem. From personal experience, it's surprising how much a person can learn in just one year of college, away from home, trying to take care of one's self. I'm certain that most potential NBA players will be better off for having at least a year to prepare themselves for the real world, both on and off the court.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gabefarkas



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 879
Location: Durham, NC

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkubatko wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching an infomercial every time I read one of these posts?


HERE'S HOW TO ORDER!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
KeeneKaufmanWheeler



Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I apologize for perpetuating this thread, but I do want to weigh in on the "fundamentals vs. athleticism" debate.

Is it possible that the athleticism of todays players has overwhelmed the fundamentals of the past? That a 2-handed set shot on today's NBA court would wind up in the 5th row more often than not? The players are so much bigger and faster today, defenses are so much more complicated and energetic ... that maybe the people who claim that nobody has any fundamental skill any more are trying to remember a bygone era.

Tim Duncan is always lauded as the best fundamental player in the game, but he also has a height and quickness advantage on almost everyone he matches up against. And those people stop mentioning Duncan's technical perfection as soon as he steps to the free throw line.

Other anectodal things I've noticed:

-- Has anyone ever watched Italian League or German League games on NBATV? They are awful! Talk about nothing but dunks and 3's -- although it is fun to see what happened to Vincent Yarborough and Dante Calabria.
-- If Europe was churning out fundamentally sound superstars right and left then wouldn't they overwhelm the US players in the NBA? The idea that Americans are more athletic than Europeans is a complete fallacy -- the talent pool in the rest of the World as a whole is much larger than in the US, and most of the world's big kids become basketball players once they become too tall for soccer. There should be an overwhelming flow of athletic giants running the picket fence like in Hoosiers pouring into the NBA. I wouldn't call Manu Ginobli a fundamental genius, he's as new-school as it gets.
-- Sports Illustrated had a feature a few months ago about Pete Maravich. I was struck by how he was completely unguarded in all of the action photos in the article. I mean, multiple pictures of him shooting while multiple defenders stood 4-6 feet from him. Stood there -- standing straight up, hands at their waists, watching him release the ball. No effort to block the shot or go after a rebound.
-- I saw a late-70's Blazers game on ESPN Classic once, and after a Bill Walton travel the color analyst starts lambasting him for not recognizing the double team and not playing team basketball. It was absolutely hilarious because it sounded just like Walton today. He may as well have been criticizing himself. So complaints about fundamentals aren't just a hip-hop era thing -- they've been around.
-- Everyone complains about USA Basketball while conveniently forgetting that our players have to adjust to a smaller ball, smaller court, different officiating and new rules while having a shorter period of time to practice and prepare for the international tournaments. And we send our B team every year since Kobe, Kidd, Garnett and Shaq haven't been going.

It just seems to me that when people complain about a bad fundamental play they ignore the effort from the opposition defense that forced the bad play. Aren't a lot of the rushed shots and bad passes that people call "bad fundamentals" are often the result of a player not seeing any other options?

I always hear the "nobody has any fundamental ability any more" and more and more I wonder how much of that is pining for a bygone era that may or may not have ever existed.

I apologize for ranting along and for keeping this thread at the top, but at least I refrained from attributing any direct quotes to myself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
B Purist



Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

“Minimum Effort Basketball (MEB) is passive gutless basketball where often the effort level of players is lacking or inconsistent. It is the anti-hustle. MEB is most prevalent with defense (see matador) and rebounding (false hustle and atrocities of half-hearted attempts to pursue missed shots). It can also be seen in offensive players standing around as idle uninvolved observers spectating on the perimeter and sometimes even pouting because they don’t have the ball. MEB is lazy half-stepping that is inexcusable and unacceptable.

There are players that walk and jog in the moving chess game of basketball when they should be sprinting. MEB has nothing to do with talent and skill, it is a matter of determination and heart and it sometimes separates great players from average and underachieving players. MEB can be summarized as playing soft and not taking pride in one’s game. MEB is spineless and disrespects the very essence of the game of basketball”

Minimum Effort Basketball is a huge deterrent to execution. Lack of consistent intensity weakens teams offense, defense and rebounding by lessening basket pressure (offense), ball pressure (defense), and backboard pressure (rebounding). The net result is fewer hoops, fewer stops, and fewer boards.

Sound fundamentals combined with effort enable players to make productive plays and appear bigger, faster and stronger by obtaining good advantageous position more often. Unfortunately there are a lot of players with skill and knowledge that are not highly motivated when it comes to asserting themselves 100% of the time. Every time they get out-hustled they do a disservice to team performance.

The Spurs are a dynamite example of fundamentals winning championships. The greatness of Timothy Theodore Duncan is a function of his ability to execute sound basics in the areas of offense, defense and rebound. The Big Fundamental is appropriately named and he is a basketball genius on the IQ scale.

The Spurs do not dog it and Duncan’s presence in the line-up demands structure. It would be illogical for a Tim Duncan team to push the pace and play schoolyard (dumb) basketball. Parker and Ginobili are high energy players. Manu is especially noteworthy as an attacker when he plays offense and defense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
94by50



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 403
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KKW, I can't think of a single rebuttal to your post.

I especially concur regarding the athleticism of today's players. Having seen enough tape of older games, there doesn't seem to be much comparison between then and now. The players are so quick today, or appear so quick, that I think a lot of what we perceive as "bad basketball" is simply a result of improved defense.

Defenses now seem to be way ahead of what they once were (from what I know). When I watch "classic" games, defenses look slower, and what's more, I never see anything more than a basic, ordinary, man-to-man in use (not that zones were allowed then).

EDIT: I reserve the right to be sharply rebuked by anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.


Last edited by 94by50 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tim Lehrbach



Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John De Francisco wrote:

“Fundamentals Win Championships”
John De Francisco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MoBettle



Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't want to make a new thread, so I decided to post this here.

Instead of doing "shooting" and "free throws" separately and giving them different percentages (40 and 25 respectively), can you just use TS% and give that 65% value? or does that not work as well?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HoopStudies



Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 533
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MoBettle wrote:
I didn't want to make a new thread, so I decided to post this here.

Instead of doing "shooting" and "free throws" separately and giving them different percentages (40 and 25 respectively), can you just use TS% and give that 65% value? or does that not work as well?


I'm sure it could be done, just haven't done it. I've never liked TS% as much as separating the two, but it doesn't seem to matter much.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
http://www.basketballonpaper.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Analyze This



Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 354
Location: Belgium

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
I do want to weigh in on the "fundamentals vs. athleticism" debate.

Is it possible that the athleticism of todays players has overwhelmed the fundamentals of the past? That a 2-handed set shot on today's NBA court would wind up in the 5th row more often than not? The players are so much bigger and faster today, defenses are so much more complicated and energetic ... that maybe the people who claim that nobody has any fundamental skill any more are trying to remember a bygone era.


Athleticism is up. I agree with that. But fundamentals are down with a lot usa players. I agree for a big part with the first post in this topic.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
Tim Duncan is always lauded as the best fundamental player in the game, but he also has a height and quickness advantage on almost everyone he matches up against. And those people stop mentioning Duncan's technical perfection as soon as he steps to the free throw line.


A good point. The Big Fundamental(one of my favorite players) as he is called has had his problems with shooting ft's in big parts of his career. He has his periods when the ft's go in at a good % and than he goes bad for a couple of games (or weeks). But other than that he is a fundamentally sound player. Is it a coincidence that this man who is praised for his fundamentals (- ft shooting) has not grown up in the "hood" like so many of today black players? That he was not dipped in from a young age in the one on one basketball hip hop style that is promoted today. I don't think so.

The best players are athletic players with sound fundamentals like Tim Duncan or like most players of the first dream team. That's what made the Americans so good in Barcelona, the combination of fundamentals with athleticism. Now they are athletic but the fundamentals are down.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
Other anectodal things I've noticed:

-- Has anyone ever watched Italian League or German League games on NBATV? They are awful! Talk about nothing but dunks and 3's -- although it is fun to see what happened to Vincent Yarborough and Dante Calabria.


European basketball is not awfull. I have seen a lot of good but also a lot of awfull nba games. The same goes for European basketball.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
-- If Europe was churning out fundamentally sound superstars right and left then wouldn't they overwhelm the US players in the NBA?


In Europe basketball is a minor sport, most athletes go and play soccer. In the USA bball is a major sport. Take that in mind. So you have less influx of athletes. I can assemble a pretty good team with European players that would go very very deep in the play-offs.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
The idea that Americans are more athletic than Europeans is a complete fallacy -- the talent pool in the rest of the World as a whole is much larger than in the US, and most of the world's big kids become basketball players once they become too tall for soccer.


Not true. Basketball is much less popular in big parts of Europe than in the USA. Tall kids don't automatic go and play basketball as they do more often in the States.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
There should be an overwhelming flow of athletic giants running the picket fence like in Hoosiers pouring into the NBA.


If I look to the current nba it is dominated by black players.
You can say what you want but it seems to me that your average black nba player is a lot more athletic than your average white nba player.
Well most Europeans are white. Bball is a minor sport in big parts of Europe so less influx of athletes= less good players.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
I wouldn't call Manu Ginobli a fundamental genius, he's as new-school as it gets.


He plays very good defense, he can drive and score inside, he can shoot the 3, makes his ft's and so on. He's pretty all round for his position and I would call his fundamentals pretty damn good.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
-- Sports Illustrated had a feature a few months ago about Pete Maravich. I was struck by how he was completely unguarded in all of the action photos in the article. I mean, multiple pictures of him shooting while multiple defenders stood 4-6 feet from him. Stood there -- standing straight up, hands at their waists, watching him release the ball. No effort to block the shot or go after a rebound.


That's nice. I have a lot of old nba dvd's. They had good, bad (and everything in between) defensive teams in the past just as they have today.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
-- I saw a late-70's Blazers game on ESPN Classic once, and after a Bill Walton travel the color analyst starts lambasting him for not recognizing the double team and not playing team basketball. It was absolutely hilarious because it sounded just like Walton today. He may as well have been criticizing himself. So complaints about fundamentals aren't just a hip-hop era thing -- they've been around.


Bill Walton, a fundamental sound center like the USA has none today. Bad example. I think in every period you have players with so so, good and bad fundamentals. But in some periods the fundamentals will be weaker than in others. By making the ncaa a sort of mini nba, to broadcast all these games out, to make the importance for these colleges bigger, the pressure to perform immediately goes up and the time to teach goes down. The one on one plays, the top 10 plays of the week that are almost all dunks and other tv stuff influence the young players and promote one on one ball. To lett all these young players go quicker to the nba means the time to learn goes down. Some players can go after for example one year to the nba and don't suffer, but most can't do this.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
-- Everyone complains about USA Basketball while conveniently forgetting that our players have to adjust to a smaller ball, smaller court, different officiating and new rules while having a shorter period of time to practice and prepare for the international tournaments. And we send our B team every year since Kobe, Kidd, Garnett and Shaq haven't been going.


No you've send a mix of a,b and c players. If you could use a time warp(back in the future) and send the last USA team of the olympics to Barcelona (first dream team) they would have trashed their opponents. The average difference would have been less but still big. Those days- when opponents took photograps of the USA players during games- are long gone. The world got better and the usa got worse.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
It just seems to me that when people complain about a bad fundamental play they ignore the effort from the opposition defense that forced the bad play. Aren't a lot of the rushed shots and bad passes that people call "bad fundamentals" are often the result of a player not seeing any other options?


No you have to many one on one ball. To much "superstars" or wanne be superstars. If you look to the past it was a diffent type of ball. And that type of ball (a modern version of it) is played in some European countries today.

KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
I always hear the "nobody has any fundamental ability any more" and more and more I wonder how much of that is pining for a bygone era that may or may not have ever existed.


It existed- enough old nba dvd's show it - and some European countries that play today are showing you a modern version of that kind of ball. The USA once teached them how to play fundamentally sound basketball and now the usa has been showed by some countries- even with the odds against them (bball is less popular so less influx of atheletes. And less inhabitants than the usa so again less chance of good athletes) that this type of basketball can defeat superior athletes with decreased fundamentals.

In 2000 you did not send your best team. You won. When you did that in 2004 and 2006 you lost. The USA needs really a lot of his good players today and needs to take the preperation very seriously (team building, scouting) to have a good/the best chance to win clearly against mostly countries with a fraction of the usa population in which basketball is a minor sport. Keep doing like there is no problem with usa basketball and in a couple of years even that will not be enough anymore. In my opinion winning the next olympics is the worst thing that can happen for usa basketball in the long run (because the see there is no problem people will take over completely)
_________________
Where There's a WilT There's a Way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tsherkin



Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eew, did you just say Manu plays good defense?

He plays defense like a soccer player, flopping ostentatiously and hoping to draw a call, then moaning and complaining about it for a while after.

He does rotate pretty well within the system but he reminds me of Vlade Divac a lot more than Jason Kidd, if you follow.

Plus, he's also got a lot more energy to use on defense when he does play man-up D because he plays less than 30 minutes a game every season.

Yeah, he can get out there and man-up well enough but he's got Duncan behind him and one of the best rotational defensive squads in league history letting him lunge and gamble... and the refs not calling it when he hand checks, nearly as often as Bruce Bowen.

I'd be a great defender if I was allowed to get into my check's pants and control where his legs went, too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Analyze This



Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 354
Location: Belgium

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tsherkin wrote:
Eew, did you just say Manu plays good defense?


Yes I did. I came to that conclusion by watching heaps of games of the Spurs. The stats seem to agree with what i see on the court.

tsherkin wrote:
He plays defense like a soccer player, flopping ostentatiously and hoping to draw a call, then moaning and complaining about it for a while after.?


It's not because he flopped in a game of which certain elements in the media made a big case (and since then keep it up) that his whole defense is flopping and he is a bad defender.


tsherkin wrote:
Plus, he's also got a lot more energy to use on defense when he does play man-up D because he plays less than 30 minutes a game every season.


I can only judge him when he plays. I can not now how his defense would be if he would play more; that's speculation.

tsherkin wrote:
Yeah, he can get out there and man-up well enough but he's got Duncan behind him and one of the best rotational defensive squads in league history letting him lunge and gamble...


Yes he's got Duncan, (one of the best or) the best defending big man in the game, and that helps like it would help every good, average or weak defender. The Spurs are such a good defense team not only thx to Duncan but also thx to other players like for example Ginobili and Bowen.

tsherkin wrote:
and the refs not calling it when he hand checks, nearly as often as Bruce Bowen.


Yeah all the refs had a meeting and that's one of the rules they voted. They decided he may do that. Later on the evening they rejected the same proposal for others. Of course.

tsherkin wrote:
I'd be a great defender if I was allowed to get into my check's pants and control where his legs went, too.


Okey you're clearly a big fan of him. Glad it doesn't cloud your judgement. Rolling Eyes
_________________
Where There's a WilT There's a Way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tsherkin



Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analyze This wrote:


It's not because he flopped in a game of which certain elements in the media made a big case (and since then keep it up) that his whole defense is flopping and he is a bad defender.


I don't care what the media says, I judge players based solely on what I've seen of them and statistics. And every game I've watched with Manu in it has featured Manu taking a fair number of Don King-induced sprawls.

In don't disagree that he's got some solid defensive fundamentals but he cheats entirely too much for me to consider him mainly a good defender.

Analyze This wrote:


I can only judge him when he plays. I can not now how his defense would be if he would play more; that's speculation.


It's relevant, if not a stupendously important observation; one could have said much the same about Michael Cooper as well, technically.

Analyze This wrote:

Yes he's got Duncan, (one of the best or) the best defending big man in the game, and that helps like it would help every good, average or weak defender. The Spurs are such a good defense team not only thx to Duncan but also thx to other players like for example Ginobili and Bowen.


Of course; I would never presume to say that Duncan is the only reason the Spurs are a good defensive team. He's the lynchpin and the centerpiece around which their defensive approach is constructed, though, and the reason the wing guys can D up so hard.

Bowen was a good defender in Miami before he became a Spur and the team as a whole rotates very well.

Analyze This wrote:


Yeah all the refs had a meeting and that's one of the rules they voted. They decided he may do that. Later on the evening they rejected the same proposal for others. Of course.


Please, Bowen gets away with stuff that other players get called on IMMEDIATELY. I don't know if you want to call it the grandfather clause because he's an older player or if it's that he's on the Spurs, but he handchecks and fouls and does all kinds of stuff that, for example, Morris Peterson or Lebron James even or Rajon Rondo get called for.

Analyze This wrote:


Okey you're clearly a big fan of him. Glad it doesn't cloud your judgement. Rolling Eyes


Of Bowen?

I like Bowen just fine; I think he's huge for the Spurs. I think he's actually pretty fundamentally sound on D for the most part and that it's incredible that he's still as good a defender as he is with relatively unimpressive athleticism.

I just don't like that he's one of a handful of players in the league that gets away with bloody murder. I used to say much the same about Karl Malone and Dikembe Mutombo, two of my favorite players. Karl Malone and Deke used to knock people the Hell out with their elbows and the way Bowen plays D used to be ALLOWED. I'm just frustrated that he's one of the few for whom it is STILL allowed.

EDIT - Not quoting myself...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    APBRmetrics Forum Index -> General discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 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 © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group