Basketball - Beijing

[PurelyAcademic]

What's your hang up with "sportsmanship"? So Lithuania could have won a medal if they called the US on losing their uniforms. How sporting would THAT have been?

Posts like these is why I don't post that often.

The US team that lost to Puerto Rico (mind you, Puerto Rico is basically a bunch of second tier Hispanic kids from NYC) and the like is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same team as the one they have now.

The fact that the US lost by 20 to PUERTO RICO should tell you something about Team USA's preparation and motivation in this tourney. I'm not talking about the rest of the field, just Puerto Rico. PR's best player, Carlos Arroyo, copuldn't even DREAM of making the USNT, much the less being a star on it. The talent level disparity between these countries is HUGE. The US basically put a squad together in 2-3 weeks and said lets go to the Olympics.

Instead of belittling my posts, perhaps you could reply to them with more civility instead of attacks. I haven't attacked you...you've attacked me.

I don't have a hangup with sportsmanship. But Lithuania could have gone by the book and called for a forfeit. They were offered that option. And if they took that option, they would have taken the bronze, and the '04 US team would have left Athens with even more embarrassment. To their credit, they beat Lithuania and took the bronze.

The US team in '04 had players like Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson (bad attitude yes, but still one of the NBA's leading scorers to this day), Dwayne Wade, LeBron James, Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudemire. Hinrich wasn't on the '04 team. Many of those players compare favorably with this years team...Tayshawn Prince, Deron Williams, Michael Redd, Chris Bosh. And there's still several players on this team that were on the '04 team...James, Boozer, Wade, Anthony. Some of those players were also on the '06 team. So to say that this year's team is DRASTICALLY different from '04 or '06 is a bit of a stretch. The main additions are Kobe Bryant and Chris Paul, which are major major additions....BUT, they are also new to the team, and it remains to be seen whether all of these scorers can co-exist and how they will react in a close game. And as recent history has shown, a collection of major talent alone does not win ballgames. Even if the '04 and '06 squads were inferior to the '08 squad...they were by far superior to the other teams in those tournaments based on talent alone. That wasn't enough, and it *may* not be enough this year.

And Puerto Rico is no chopped liver either...they finished 6th in Athens and have had some pretty good middle of the pack showings in recent tournaments. Not a powerhouse, and certainly by far the worst loss for Team USA, but not exactly second-tier hispanic kids from NYC.

Interestingly enough, what you said about Arroyo and Puerto Rico proves the point I am trying to make. Arroyo couldn't make the '04 (or any) US squad no matter how hard he tried. But in '04, he was Puerto Rico's best player, and thoroughly embarrassed Team USA. I know, because I was actually there, in the stadium, for that game. What does this prove, boys and girls? The best TEAM won that day, and that day, Puerto Rico, despite not even being in the same universe in terms of talent, defeated the USA, a fate that befell the US again in that tournament against Argentina and Lithuania with close calls against Greece and even Australia.

Again in 2008, the best TEAM is going to win, not the best aggregation of talent. And the USA might very well be the best team. But they will have to prove it. That's why they play the games.

[Kolokotronis]

How the hell could the Bulls have made the Hall of Fame when they weren't eligible for it?

Of course the Hall of fame is stacked with guys from the 60's. They're older and were first in time.

The Bulls flat out were more talented all across the board, save for Bill Rusell. Guys like John Havlicek and Tom Heinsohn would have been role players, at best, on the Bulls.

Wilt Chamberlain a "fundamentaL" player? Are you smoking something this morning?

What about Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, John Paxson, BJ Armstrong, etc... tells you they weren't "fundamental" players? What "fundamentals" were they lacking? For God's sake, Oscar Robertson played in an era comprised of slow stiff white guys. He couldnt hold Jordan's jock. Yet he's in the H of F fame because he was the best in his era.

tell me exactly when the celtics or Oscar Robertson played against the likes of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Isaiah Thomas, Karl Malone, Akeem Olajuwon, etc....?

You like to put words in my mouth. The players in the 60s weren't in the hall of fame either. They became hall of famers once they retired. Looking at the Bulls team, other than Jordan and Pippen and *maybe* Rodman, I don't see any other hall of famers, but most other teams from that era will not have even one hall of famer, thanks to dilution and overexpansion of the NBA.

A good analogy, though, for the 90s is the NBA's list of the 50 greatest players of all time, released in 1996, which included many current players at the time, who surely will all make it to the Hall of Fame.

Guys like Havlicek and Heinsohn would have been far, far more than role players on the Bulls in the 90s, unless you're trying to tell me that the likes of Ron Harper, B.J. Armstrong, Bill Cartwright, Stacey King, Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, and Toni Kukoc are better than those hall of famers. Honestly, what are *you* smoking???

I also never said that Chamberlain specifically was a fundamental player. But you can't deny that he averaged 50 ppg for an entire season, or led the league in assists one year (I believe he's the only center to have done so in NBA history). I don't think there's any center in today's NBA that could come close to either accomplishment.

You are right that Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Armstrong, etc. were fundamental players. Therein also lies one of the keys to the Bulls success. They actually had players with strong fundamentals who knew their roles. In the 1990s that was increasingly becoming less common in the NBA. Look at some recent NBA champions...the Spurs, the Pistons in '04....very fundamentally sound teams. Most teams in today's NBA, however, lack those fundamentals.

As for Oscar, you are way, way, way off. Again, going up night in and night out against the same 8 teams with stacked rosters, and still averaging a triple double? And look at some of his contemporaries...Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Walt Frazier. HARDLY stiffs, and not all of them were white either!

Of course they became Hall of famers when they retired. That's the whole point.

Robertson, Heinsohn, Havlicvek, Chamberlain wnet up against inferior players night in night out. The league wasn't fully integrated then, nor did you have the influx of Europeans and South Americans. Nor wa sthe game playec above the rim as it was in the Bulls era. If Heinsihn and Havlicek playecin todays game, they wouldn't even get a sniff of the hall of fame.

Horace Grant was a flat out better player than Tommy Heinsohn. And Toni Kukoc was better than Havlicek. Of course you can't see it because you're evaluating them based on their output against inferior players.

What was fundementally unsound about the Pistons or Lakers of the Bulls era?

The Bulls won because they usually had the two best players on the court. In a five man game, that's invaluable.

Of course no center in the NBA today would score 50 per game, Their coach would shoot them if they did. The fact that chamberlain did score 50 per game tells you how inferior the league was back then. I would venture to say that Shack could have scored 50 a game back the also.

And no, the rosters weren't stacked because there were less teams. There simply was lot less talent available back then, especially of the African American variety.

[PurelyAcademic]

Of course they became Hall of famers when they retired. That's the whole point.

Robertson, Heinsohn, Havlicvek, Chamberlain wnet up against inferior players night in night out. The league wasn't fully integrated then, nor did you have the influx of Europeans and South Americans. Nor wa sthe game playec above the rim as it was in the Bulls era. If Heinsihn and Havlicek playecin todays game, they wouldn't even get a sniff of the hall of fame.

Horace Grant was a flat out better player than Tommy Heinsohn. And Toni Kukoc was better than Havlicek. Of course you can't see it because you're evaluating them based on their output against inferior players.

What was fundementally unsound about the Pistons or Lakers of the Bulls era?

The Bulls won because they usually had the two best players on the court. In a five man game, that's invaluable.

Of course no center in the NBA today would score 50 per game, Their coach would shoot them if they did. The fact that chamberlain did score 50 per game tells you how inferior the league was back then. I would venture to say that Shack could have scored 50 a game back the also.

And no, the rosters weren't stacked because there were less teams. There simply was lot less talent available back then, especially of the African American variety.

And that was my point too. You're not going to see the same percentage of players make it to the hall of fame from the 90s and today.

Jordan and Pippen went up against inferior players night in and night out too (you pretty much alluded to this when you said that they were usually the two best players on the floor). They were among the best ever. And in the NBA of the 90s, with expansion and diluted talent amongst 27-30 teams, you can be sure that they faced plenty of inferior competition along the way. When you face eight teams in a season, not only is the talent concentrated, but each team plays each other several times in an 82 game season (which they already had back then). Teams become intimately familiar with each other, which makes it that much tougher to be able to rise above that and win eight championships in a row.

You are right to an extent about the integration of African American players, but by the 60s, African American players were already leading the way in the NBA in most respects. Look at Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Walt Frazier, Earl Monroe...all African American. Bill Russell was the MVP of the Celtics team which won 8 titles in a row. What was lacking, yes, was Euro players, but that is a very recent phenomenon. The first Euros didn't really crack the NBA until the mid-late 80s, with the likes of Detlef Schrempf and Rik Smits, and even in the 90s, with others like Toni Kukoc and Arvydas Sabonis making the jump across the pond, they weren't dominant forces. Now you have Ming, Nowitski, Ginobili, Parker, who play at an MVP level. This has only happened in this decade, and even now, the number of true Euro stars in the NBA isn't very large. However, again, this does show that since the 80s and more and more in the past 15 years or so, competition internationally has caught up to the point that you have foreign-born players playing MVP-caliber ball in the NBA.

I don't want to get too far off-topic though (and draw the ire of the mods?)....the topic here is the Beijing Olympics. So as a transition back to our topic of conversation, let me point out that in the 2nd quarter, Team USA is leading against Angola, 39-32 (17-14 after the first quarter). Close game so far, especially when considering that Angola is one of the weakest teams in the tournament. I still expect a blowout, but it should be noted that so far, Angola is shooting 60% on two-pointers, is 5-5 from the free throw line (team USA is 6-11), and has *outrebounded* Team USA.

[Genome]

Guys keep it on topic. Kolokotronis: PurelyAcademic is new here, try not getting so aggravated with every new post, no need to call anyone's words nonsense here, or "anti-US rhetoric" (?).

[paxiotis7]

The states won 97-76 but to me that doesnt seem to impressive vs angloa. Some stuff that I;ve read said the states "overpowerd" angola. But i dont no if winning by 20 points to angola is that good.

Our odds are to good vs the us in the group stages right now, because the us want us back. This is a big game for them. They most likely will come on and destroy us. Then went we meet them in the semis they will underestimate us.

[Nick99]

Bravo paidia! 87-64, that's a confidence-builder if there ever was one. The USA-Hellas game is Thursday a.m., at a decent hour EST.

China really impressed today, taking Spain to the limit.

[Crazy]

I can not wait for our game against the USA.Win or lose,i dont care.Elladara-Omadara :tup: :tup: :tup: :gr: :gr: :tup: :tup:

PS.Welcome PurelyAcademic

[loup]

Horace Grant was a flat out better player than Tommy Heinsohn. And Toni Kukoc was better than Havlicek. Of course you can't see it because you're evaluating them based on their output against inferior players.

ti les re?

grant vs heinsohn - look at the stats, the all star game appearances, the all-nba honours

Havlicek is a legend -- top 50 of all time

Bill Wennington was better than Russle too?

What are you comparing, skill? Athleticism?

A second string offesnive lineman today would have been the greatest lineman in the 60's because he weighs 350 pounds and would throw around the 230 lb ends of that time?

unless you are comparing racehorses the time and era MUST be considered if you compare athletes across decades

------

And as far who the Bulls were beating in the 90's,

Bird, Magic and the Pistons were already done by then, that Laker team they beat was not in the same class as other teams that had a young Magic and an unstoppable Kareem

When they were in their prime those Celtics teams or Lakers teams would have beaten any Bulls team, IMO.

The Bulls won 6 titles against some so-so competition, Utah had a good team and the Knicks were decent, but neither would likely win a title today.

[Kolokotronis]

If you compare them in their respective eras, then yes, Heinsohn was a better player than Grant.

If you compare them one on one at their peaks, Horace was a better player. And I've seen BOTH play.

Same goes with Havlicek and Kukoc.

Wennington did NOT start for the Bulls.

Cartwright and Longley did.

The Bulls knocked off the Pistons, who were at their peak and loaded, to start their impressive streak. The Bulls caused the Pistons demise.

Granted, there may not have been a team like the 80's Celtics or Lakers to challenge the Bulls, but six titles is damn impressive no matter which way you slice it. The NBA still had some pretty damnn good teams in that era, including the Olajuwon led Rockets and the Knicks. Not like the slow mo NBA in the 60's.

Whether or not the Lakers or Celtics would have beaten the Bulls is a subjective opinion, but I can tell you this-neither the Lakers or Celtics played defense the way the Bulls did, nor did they have Michael Jordan.

[Kolokotronis]

The states won 97-76 but to me that doesnt seem to impressive vs angloa. Some stuff that I;ve read said the states "overpowerd" angola. But i dont no if winning by 20 points to angola is that good.

Our odds are to good vs the us in the group stages right now, because the us want us back. This is a big game for them. They most likely will come on and destroy us. Then went we meet them in the semis they will underestimate us.

Overpower is a good term. The Americans simply ran right over the top of them. The only reason the margin was just 20 is because the US didn't bother to defend the three pointer.

Angola is a very sub par team.

[loup]

BTW

some nice talk on this board and the effort put forward by the posters is greatly appreciated

welcome Purely to this board

I love soccer but it is nice to talk a bit about basketball too

I'm psyched less than 2 days until i get to watch the ethniki again-- the other games werent on here in Canada -- although they are likely to get slaughtered I cant wait

:gr:

[loup]

The states won 97-76 but to me that doesnt seem to impressive vs angloa. Some stuff that I;ve read said the states "overpowerd" angola. But i dont no if winning by 20 points to angola is that good.

Our odds are to good vs the us in the group stages right now, because the us want us back. This is a big game for them. They most likely will come on and destroy us. Then went we meet them in the semis they will underestimate us.

Overpower is a good term. The Americans simply ran right over the top of them. The only reason the margin was just 20 is because the US didn't bother to defend the three pointer.

Angola is a very sub par team.

poor Angola, they have been a mainstay in these competitions for years now , since Barkley planted his elbow on one of them 12 years ago -- and I'm not sure if they've ever won a game ever i need to look it up

[loup]

i was way off they won 3 games in the last WC , Japan NZ and Panama and only lost by a couple to Germany --and were ranked 9th

bravo tous :tup:

[aekmafia21]

tha mas fane i americani sorry guys by atleast 20 plus

[Genome]

No way ... I think we'll throw a good game. It's going to be close, if not a win! :tup: :gr: :tup:

[paxiotis7]

i was way off they won 3 games in the last WC , Japan NZ and Panama and only lost by a couple to Germany --and were ranked 9th

bravo tous :tup:

:LOL:

[loup]

People are still pissed about the WINK photo

I hope this unnerves the Spaniards

I don't know what it is about this team - but I despise them

Looks like some of the Spaniard NBAers may get fined/suspended for this once they get back to the US

[loup]

ESPN article about the game tomorrow

Pretty good article, with descriptions of all 12 Greek players. The only problem I see is the mention that Greece plays poor if behind. Let them believe that, but the comebacks in recent years, most noticeably vs France in 2005, prove otherwise.

Coach K and Gianoulis are good buddies I guess.

[Nick99]

You mean friends with Giannakis, right?

They call Vasilopoulos a small forward but he's listed as 6'8", that's easily more than average height, even for a forward, isn't it?

Anyway, really curious to see how these new guys fair, Glyniadakis chief among them. We saw a bit of Bourousis at last year's Euro I think.

Surprised that Kakiouzis is no longer there, he was captain in the last few tournaments and proved to be a good leader, cool, poised, as well as a clutch shooter especially treys and other perimeter shots.

Spanoulis was a key 2 years ago, but may just have reached his peak to date in these Olympics.

I agree on the assessment of Fotsis, I can't help but picture him with a perpetual complaining look on his face. Our best player vs. the USA in Athens, but hot and cold. Some nights, he can be your best shooter, others not at all, and he doesn't even have the sense to make up for it by driving and drawing fouls.

Will they use Sofo a lot versus Howard's imposing size and strength?

[loup]

Maybe playing him so few minutes was to rest/mislead the US

Too bad he's so overweight, he is so talented

And I did mean Gianakis oops

[PurelyAcademic]

Kolokotronis...not to keep this conversation up, but just one last reply to your post:

You may have seen both Heinsohn and Grant play, but it's still laughable that you would say Grant was better than Heinsohn. In fact, I would point out that Horace Grant, while having an excellent career with the Bulls, was merely average at best without Michael Jordan. Jordan's teams had the knack of taking average or even subpar role players and making them something more than they were. Look at players like Luc Longley, Jud Bucheler, Stacey King, Bill Wennington, B.J. Armstrong. Their careers all faded very quickly once Jordan was no longer around or once they were traded or signed with another team. It's laughable to compare these players with someone who is a proven hall of famer and Top 50 player of all time, no matter what the era is.

And saying the truth about Team USA is not anti-US rhetoric. I think I've been very careful in my posts to not underestimate this year's Team USA, but at the same time, not to annoint them this year's gold medalists either. That's why they play the games. The fact is that their results in 2002, 2004 and 2006 were all below expectations, and that the rhetoric we are hearing this year about the team being "better" than the previous squads, being "ready," etc, is stuff we also heard in 2006 and 2004. I don't buy any of that talk until it's proven in reality.

That said, I am not expecting the Ethniki to win versus Team USA (though it is quite possible!), but I do not expect it to be a huge blowout either. I think we will be competitive at the very least, and that's all I ask for. This game is not life-or-death for us.

Loup - I think the ESPN guys got their analysis part right, at best. If anything, I think the Greek team plays better when behind (first match versus Spain notwithstanding) than when ahead (game versus Germany notwithstanding, we own them). Just since 2005, think of all the incredible comebacks that the Ethniki has managed to pull off...the last second three pointers, the 10 points in 2 minutes versus Slovenia, the game-winner versus France in 2005, etc. If anything, I find that we sometimes need that "kick in the rear" to get going and pull ourselves together.

Nick99- I've been impressed with Vasilopoulos. He seems to be shooting well in this tournament and is playing with energy, and I'm glad he's getting some minutes. I'm hoping some of the other players like Zizis, who have been quiet so far, will step versus Team USA and in the medal rounds. As for Big Sofo...he's an enigma. We all know what he is capable of, and I think Giannakis did rest him with hopes of utilizing him against the Americans. Hopefully he will have it in him to bring back some of that magic from his performance versus Team USA in 2006....and hopefully he'll hit some free throws as well! Honestly, imagine "Baby Shaq" (as the Americans call him) and the real Shaq, in a free-throw shooting competition :LOL:

[PurelyAcademic]

Spain just defeated Germany 72-59 and continues undefeated, while Germany falls to 1-2. Looks like the Germany-China matchup may just determine who gets 4th place and emerges from the group.

Also I just noticed on fiba.com that Spanoulis is the third leading scorer so far in this tournament at 19 ppg! Wouldn't be surprised if he draws the interest of some NBA teams again, though I don't think he wants to go back.

[Kolokotronis]

Kolokotronis...not to keep this conversation up, but just one last reply to your post:

[Kolokotronis]

Spain just defeated Germany 72-59 and continues undefeated, while Germany falls to 1-2. Looks like the Germany-China matchup may just determine who gets 4th place and emerges from the group.

Also I just noticed on fiba.com that Spanoulis is the third leading scorer so far in this tournament at 19 ppg! Wouldn't be surprised if he draws the interest of some NBA teams again, though I don't think he wants to go back.

Although Spanoulis may be Greece's best player at the moment, I don't think his game is ideally suited for the NBA. In fact, I think both Papaloukas and Diamantidis are better NBA prospects.

He reminds me a bit of Ben Gordon, with a little Kirk Hinrich thrown in. Not a pure point guard, but a scorer/slasher, and at his size, that's a difficult thing to pull off in the NBA. Its one thing driving to the hole against FIBA defense, quite another doing it against the quickest point guards in the NBA.

Not sure what happened in Houston, but the fact is he couldn't win a starting job with Steve Francis out, and he had the likes of Rafer Alston and Luther Head playing ahead of him.

I think his best bet is to stay in Greece. He's one hell of a FIBA player.

[PurelyAcademic]

Maybe you didn't read my post carefully.

I said if you were to compare them in their respective eras, Heinsohn was better simply because he had more of an effect on the outcome of the game.

That being said, he also played in a piss poor league dominated by unathletic stiff white guys. The NBA game in the 60's was nowhere near the game its was in the 80's and 90's. It was played primarily below the rim. Therefore, many players who dominated the NBA in the 60's, like Heinsohn, would be nothing more than average in the NBA 20 year later, if you were to project their skills 20 years forward. Yes, Heinsohn dominated in the 60's, but he couldn't have done so in the 80's or 90's. Heinsoh dominated and was elected to the Hall of Fame based on his performance against mediocre talent in the 60's, not against the super athletic mega studs of the 80's and 90's. On the contrary, the game of the 80's and 90's is not much different than the game today. Horace would still be a stud in today's game.

As for your assertion that Horace was nothing without Jordan .... BZZZT.....WRONG. The Bulls were a basket away from making the NBA finals in '94, WITHOUT Jordan. And Grant's stellar play was one of the reasons. As a result, he made the all star team and landed a mega contract with the Magic, based primarily on that one season without Jordan. He also helped lead the Magic to the NBA finals his first year in Orlando, without Jordan. To compare him to bench warmers like Buechler, King and Wennington and role players like Armstrong and Longley is disingenious, to say the elast. Grant was an all star. The others were filler.

Your assertion may be true about guys like John Paxson, BJ Armstrong, and Steve Kerr, but not about Grant. Grant was an all star caliber player with or without Jordan. The other three I mentioned were limited point guards who benefitted from Jordan's presence on the court.

Kolokotronis, I did read what you wrote carefully, and I stand by my belief, as well as my previous assertion that the league in the 60s was far more competitive than you are giving it credit for. Unless you believe Bill Russell, Willis Reed, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, and Elgin Baylor are all "stiff white guys" as well.

The 1994 Bulls team did well without Jordan, but they were not one basket away from the NBA Finals. They were one basket away from the Conference Finals, where it isn't certain that they would haven gotten past the Pacers...who themselves were four points away from making it to the finals against the Knicks. Grant and Pippen did have very strong years, as well as Armstrong (they were all all-stars that year, for Grant and Armstrong their only all-star appearance), however, part of that success can be attributed to the Bulls and Phil Jackson sticking with a similar style of play that year. And even so...Grant and Armstrong had strong years, but not Hall-of-Fame caliber years. The following year, the Bulls fell apart before Jordan un-retired for the first time, and the careers of the likes of Grant and Armstrong slid pretty fast. Neither of them made another all-star team, I believe Armstrong was out of the NBA within another couple of years, and Grant ended up as a role player for the Magic, shooting 20 foot jumpers.

Anyhow, it's silly to continue to try and create hypotheticals on how different players would have played in different eras, but I do feel that putting up hall of fame numbers in the 60s was not nearly as easy as you are making it out to be.

To get back on topic, I think Spanoulis was a victim of circumstance in Houston. Van Gundy is known for not giving rookies much "burn" and it was clear that Spanoulis couldn't get into a rhythm during the few opportunities he did get for some playing time. I do agree with you about Spanoulis' size and skills, which are better suited for FIBA than the NBA. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that he couldn't have had better numbers in the NBA on some other team, perhaps, but his slashing, drive to the hoop style is certainly more difficult to succeed with at his height against 6'6"-6'8" guards and small forwards in the NBA.

I agree that Diamantidis and Papaloukas are the most "NBA ready" Greek players and it would have been interesting to see how they would have performed in the NBA, perhaps on a team like the Raptors or Spurs or Mavericks. At this point in their careers, though, I think they will prefer to remain in Europe, so our questions will probably remain unanswered.