Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
American Conquistadors
Related Content
People averse to redundancy will cite the USA men's basketball team's sudden accuracy from the three-point line (12-25, after shooting 29% in the previous three games) and free-throw stripe (19-24, after going 69% before) as noteworthy factors in its 37-point rout of defending World Champion Spain, 119-82, on Saturday morning. But if accuracy is what you're after, the most significant reasons for this thrashing are no different from the previous three this team has administered: Bloodhound defense that is quick, smart, relentless, opportunistic and synergistic. And unselfish, improvisational, transition-oriented offense that only very rarely opts for flash over efficiency.
Saturday's performance was so thoroughly sublime I can't even criticize Jason Kidd, who had his best 13 minutes of the tournament by staying with Jose Calderon on the perimeter. Defensive quickness and aggression in transition have made Deron Williams and Chris Paul better options than Kidd in the backcourt, which is why both rank among the top five in minutes-played. But Kidd turned back the page a little bit with his lateral movement guarding Calderon. And he also was forced to take a shot, wide open for a layup on a breakaway.
The performance that is likely to affect rotations in the near future was the play of Tayshaun Prince, who got some non-garbage time and drained three of four treys in addition to stolid defense. Not only does this push Michael Redd further into the background, it gives Coach K more length without backsliding on the team's most significant virtue: the ability to extend crushing man-to-man defense out to the perimeter and still guard both the paint and the wings. For most of the tournament, LeBron has been the best inside-outside defensive guy, capable of both filling passing lanes and blocking shots attempted off the dribble. Prince brings a similar dynamic, and if he can also load up the three, opponents are going to have yet another matchup nightmare and yet another tough decision about how to defend this collection of superstars. The best three-point shooters for the USA through four games are Melo and Prince.
Thus far, the USA has destroyed every team that has tried to pressure them. Their successful response has been an utterly simple formula: Paul and Williams need to avoid picking up their dribble (check) and get the ball to one of the swingmen like LeBron or Wade or Kobe (check), who either drive for a score, shoot an open jumper that usually scores, or, most often, dish down low to a man left unguarded by the manpower loss from the trap. LeBron had 8 assists Saturday, and it was probably his most careless game with the ball (he also had 4 turnovers).
Meanwhile, at the other end, the USA's defense forbids transition hoops. On a day of amazing stats, the jaw-dropper was zero fast break points for Spain, versus 32 for the USA.
Aside from Prince, and general improvement from relative laggards like Kidd and Dwight Howard, there is a clearcut pattern developing on this team, as roles and identities are beginning to gel. And it contains a few surprises. Essentially, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade have switched identities, relative to expectations going into the tournament. People imagined that Kobe would be everywhere, getting the key steal, the crucial bucket, and generally being the one to nip negative momentum in the bud. For D-Wade, people imagined there would be flashes of brilliance but also periods where he'd bite off more than he could chew, either trying to stick the dagger in with a shot or getting too antsy or just trying to figure out how to mesh his ball-dominant game in with a plethora of superstars. But Wade has played like people thought Kobe would perform, and vice versa.
The lineup that Coach K counts on to generate separation is Williams and Paul in the backcourt, Wade and LeBron as the swingmen and Bosh in the pivot. After four games it is obvious that the Bosh-Wade-Paul-Williams substitutions improve the team. That's not to denigrate Kobe or even Melo, Howard and Kidd, but the others are quicker defensively and just seem hungrier out on the floor. They--and especially Wade--demoralize opponents.
A few more quick takes:
* Horrible officiating in the first half. What happened to "letting them play" in the Olympics? The refs were especially protective of the 17-year old point guard Ricky Rubio, who went to the free throw line if he was breathed on during his first few stints.
* The best opponent, by far, against the USA thus far has been burly forward Felipe Reyes, who shot 9-12, grabbed five offensive rebounds and also played decent defense. By contrast, I was shocked at how poorly Calderon played, but not at the lousy performance by Juan Navarro. The former is a future all star in the NBA; the latter was a clanking gunner during the games Memphis played the Wolves last years. Navarro also doesn't play defense.
* Finally, I'm going to use a comment by Strib writer Rachel Blount on Sunday to air a pet peeve of mine regarding writers who obviously either don't like pro hoops or don't understand pro hoops feeling free to parade their ignorance. Blount is hardly the biggest offender. In fact, in her piece, titled "U.S. stars also are slam-dunk ambassadors," she made the salient point that the Olympics benefit from the absence of the pro sports sideshow (she calls it NBA, but all major team sports have it); the stupid skits and contests and announcers and film clips and ads ads ads.
But then Blount wrote: "They are playing a brand of ball far more entertaining than most NBA games." Well, if you lean on the side of jingoism and enjoy watching Americans outclass the world, yes, it is thoroughly enjoyable. And simply from an aesthetic standpoint, the USA men's games have been things of beauty. But is this really preferable to the NBA? Would you want nothing but all-star games in all the sports that are played? Do we want to see Canada vs Russia or the Czech Republic in hockey, or a Red Wings-Stars finals?
Blount elaborates, saying "The real appeal of this group shines when Chris Paul dishes off to Carmelo Anthony on the baseline for a jam, when Dwyane Wade strips the ball away to start a fast break, when Tayshaun Prince lofts a pass over the rim for LeBron James to throw it through." Well, wait a minute. Did Blount watch Chris Paul during the regular season or playoffs at all last season? Because he dished for more jams per game in those contests than he has in the Olympics. And why Wade stripping the ball from a hapless Angolan is somehow preferable to James Posey stripping Lamar Odom in the Finals, for example, is beyond me.
Yeah, I know, she said "most" NBA games. But it still amounts to "Olympics are better hoops than the NBA," and is part of what has become stupid conventional wisdom among the general public over the past 20 years. It happens to the NBA far more than other team sports. How many times have we all heard--"I don't watch the NBA until--insert either "second half," "fourth quarter," or "final few minutes" here--because that's when they really start trying." That's like me saying I don't watch baseball until the 9th inning because that's when the teams insert their best pitchers, or I don't watch football until the final few minutes because that's when teams really start trying to score with long passes and less time between plays.
Long long ago, Rachel Blount covered the Minnesota Timberwolves as a beat for the Strib. She wasn't terrible but she didn't distinguish herself and didn't last long. She went and found things that were more enjoyable for her to write--like the Olympics.
30 Reader Comments
I thought her comment was a bit off too. I absolutely love the international game but I don't think that her preference for what was going on in China had anything to do with what your typical Euro League game brings to the table vis-a-vis the NBA. To me, it came off sounding more like some of the drivel that has poked its head out in some of the international press: "Why do they dunk so much?" and "While they may have beat our team with superior athleticism, we play a more pure form of the game." ....than it did a legit comparison of Olympic ball and the NBA.
They are playing a "different brand of ball" because they are the best players in the world. Period. This is like saying that Michael Phelps is showing a different brand of swimming if he were let loose in Bloomington Kennedy's pool for a Classic Lake matchup against Jefferson.
The point she failed to make is that the international game itself--with its wider lane, shorter 3 point line, liberal stance towards body contact, etc-- may be more entertaining than the NBA...if it is played by NBA-level talent. The rules of the game are like a car; while one set of rules may be a 68 Pontiac GTO, it still takes a good driver to win the race. Right now, I think NBA players are driving a ratty-ass Chevy Vega....and when you combine the NBA game with things like ridiculous 1/2 time shows, poor officiating, meaningless March/April games, etc...it gets to be a bit much and the best drivers should be able to drive the best cars.
I would absolutely love for the NBA to adopt FIBA rules and to shorten the season. I think this system of ball would be vastly superior to the 100+ game monstrosity that David Stern currently trots out each and every year. Blount's version of improved entertainment is based on nothing more than massive talent gaps. However, there is a case to be made that improved entertainment can come about by switching some NBA rules over to FIBA ones. Olympic basketball is not better than the NBA, FIBA ball is....relative to talent.
BTW: I didn't get to catch the game live but I did watch it on my computer and I don't think that Rubio got that many cheesy calls. I can't tell you how impressed I am with the kid's game. For a high school senior to play on the 2nd best mens national team in the world, and for him to hold his own with NBA All Stars and future Hall of Famers is insane. His defense, handle, and passing are NBA-ready right now. The most surprising thing about his game was that he could get into the lane when he wanted and that he may have the quickest hands in all of basketball...and yes, I completely mean that. Also, when was the last time you saw a Euro player play that American? One handed lobs, perfect pick and rolls, floaters, baiting defense....whenever this kid comes out he'll be a top 3 pick. It took him about a quarter to adjust to the speed of the game and you could see him get better as time went on. Let me officially start the Ricky Rubio/Stephen Curry draft chant. :)
S+P--
Your knowledge and enthusiasm are invaluable around here, but I've got to say that Rubio was constantly getting the benefit of the doubt from the officials. By contrast, there was one play where Rudy Fernandez got crunched--there was a legit block of his layup but then he got whacked by another player from the side, and no whistle. Rubio will be good, no question, and yes, he "plays American," but the refs were kind and Chris Paul did undress him more than once. No shame in that, of course, but I guess what I'm saying is, Rubio is a 17-year old kid who plays like he's 19, like he's had a year or two in a top college program. He's ready to be drafted already, but not ready to start for a playoff contender. Again, no shame in that, just a little perspective.
BTW, what is the rep on Reyes? Is he usually that solid? Anybody tried to lure him over to the NBA? Because if that porker Marc Gasol can garner NBA money, Reyes deserves to get paid.
The length of the season corresponds to the size of the contracts and you are not going to put that genie back in the bottle. I don't think the officiating is that bad, either in the NBA or these Olympics (Saturday's game was an exception). And I think that the hand-checking rules have had some of the same effect of what a wider lane would do. It is more open now, and less post-up oriented. The halftime shows and all the other junk--you and I will have to learn to live with it. It's like talking on a cell phone as you drive: The acceptability of it is totally based on what you grew up with.
I don't know much about Reyes except that he plays for Real Madrid and they played the Raptors while the Wolves were in Europe last year. Here's their team page:
http://www.euroleague.net/main/teams/showteam?clubcode=MAD
Here's his profile from Draft Express:
"One of the top players in the ACB League this season is Felipe Reyes, and he was a big reason why Real Madrid reached the Cup final. Not a guy with impressive physical or technical characteristics, he’s a very tough, aggressive and super intense inside player; an excellent rebounder with an ongoing skill development. He was the anchor of Real’s paint game, providing the inside points necessary to balance the team game. In the three games of the tourney, he averaged 16.3 points and 8 rebounds.
Reyes belongs to that magical 1980 Spanish generation that includes the likes of Pau Gasol, Juan Carlos Navarro, Raul Lopez and José Manuel Calderón (although the Raptor PG is born in 1981), that came up victorious at the European and World stage in the junior category, eventually leading Spain to conquer the World Championship in Japan last summer. Felipe was never considered to have the type of potential some of his teammates enjoyed, but his hard work and determination has placed him amongst the European elite.
Very strong, but at the same time extremely mobile, Reyes moves pretty well in the paint despite not enjoying a very glamorous low-post game. But he can bang, and he’s quick, aggressive and quite reliable finishing around the rim. He can also attack his match-ups off the dribble, although he usually goes to his right, which makes him highly predictable. His mid-range jumper is becoming really solid while he’s expanding his range, which really helps him in order to increase his repertoire and enables him to display a more orthodox power-forward's game. On defense, he shows excellent positioning and a lot of activity, becoming a very reliable piece. As aforementioned, he’s a terrific rebounder with a great knack for the offensive boards. All in all, he’s a kind of basketball soldier on the court.
Not a super intriguing talent NBA-wise, it wouldn’t be that far-fetched to think that he could become a decent role player in the paint for some team in need of inside help. However, given his star status in the wealthy ACB League, a hypothetical NBA adventure looks like a long shot."
....he probably would be an upgrade over a guy like Craig Smith but would cost a ton. From what I've read about the guy with a few quick Google searches, it looks like he's a top player on his team and he'll make as much or more playing at home as he would over here. And yes, Marc Gasol is insanely porky.
BTW: we have pictures of the new Wolves unis up over at Hoopus:
http://www.canishoopus.com/2008/8/18/596119/here-they-are
As for Rubio, I think he has the tools to be a monster in the NBA in 3-4 years and I agree that it will be hard to put the salary genie back in the bottle unless the NBA develops a real minor league system and can work out players' rights through their development (i.e. college).
There is a certain disconnect between this post and your previous. It seems ridiculous to quote, however it seems necessary.
"Yeah, I could watch this team 365 days a year. Take the world's greatest athletes (anyone wanna debate that?) motivate them with patriotism and professional pride, give at least two of the most talented--"LeBronze" and the prematurely discounted Dwyane Wade--an extra nudge toward the need for retribution, and then settle in with your fingers on the pause and slo-mo buttons. Game on. Game over."
Perhaps this is just the "aesthetic standpoint." Certainly not jingoism. Given this disconnect, could your criticisms of those who praise the Olympics while denigrating the NBA game be overly harsh? Especially when your frustrations become targeted at an individual journalist?
Good catch. The "disconnect" that doesn't belong is the statement, "I could watch this team 365 days a year." Perhaps if the first unit played the second unit I could; but even then I think I'd long for the role players and the emerging talents, and the need for good coaching...
I am very comfortable denying jingoism. If all these guys played for France, or Romania, etc., I'd enjoy their play just as much. I do enjoy the fact that the best basketball in the world is played in the United States, because I have greater access to it, just as I enjoyed the fact that the best was played in Boston while I was growing up in Boston. But I don't have to have USA! USA! rammed down everyone's throat as a result. The reason I enjoyed the "extra nudge" is because it has obviously elevated LeBron's passing and overall passion and raised Wade's defense to unforeseen heights.
Yes, the frustrations were somewhat targeted at an individual journalist. I thought I was pretty clear and relatively careful about what parts of my comments specifically criticized Blount and what parts she just played into a pet peeve, and thus should not be specifically called out. And under those parameters, no, I don't think it was overly harsh.
While I agree that I would rather not see an All-star vs All-star team play each other in the finals, I have to argue a few of your points. First off being, the league last year was probably in the best shape it has been in years. It's easy to forget that just a few years ago, we were forced to watch AI take on Vince 1 on 1 for six (?) games. They both respectively attempted to score 50 points, while the rest of the team just stood around. The league is now seemingly move towards a more team orientated set, and the success of the Celtics and Pistons will increase this trend even more.
Secondly, there's something mystical about the olympics that has been lost in years past, that's becoming to resurface now. There's more at stake - four years of training to be exact. Announcers made a great point in stating that the other players dream of winning an Olympic gold. On the other hand, US basketball players hold winning an nba championship as a higher priority to their legacy.
One final point, which I want to make simply because I was thinking about it while reading a couple of olympic articles. I don't necessarily believe the world has caught up talent wise, and I find it hard to believe that anyone can put together a team that can match our athleticism and talent cieling. Everyone was saying that the US has fallen off its pedestal, but people are panicing way too soon. The 2004 Athens team had so many factors working against them. The team selected was unrealistically pushing the product of Wade, Melo and Lebron before they were even close to ready. Then, they opted to send Marbury and AI as the veteran backcourt and we all know how much of a winner Marbury is. When I watched him in Athens, Marbury was AWFUL, chucking 3 after 3 and it became painfully obvious that oh yeah, marbury is not a good shooter. AI tried his hardest, but he needed to dominate the ball. TD on the other hand, was probably double and triple teamed every game because they had no shooters to extend the floor. The other bigs? They brought along OKAFOR, coming STRAIGHT from college. Disgusting. At least, people will watch this time around and be interested.
As for the Olympics vs. NBA debate, I think it's so tough to compare them that it's foolish to do so. The Olympics happen for three weeks every four years; of course they're going to seem more special than NBA games. One is part of a long grind; the other includes years of preparation and an element of history and national pride that goes far beyond basketball. It's okay if a person doesn't like the NBA, but it bothers me when that's the basis of arguments saying (the Olympics/college basketball/HS basketball) are of a higher quality.
Good stuff here from both of you. This is as good a time as any to cop to the fact that I am NBA-centric, and am thin-skinned from having watched the pro game get reflexively bashed as somehow being inferior to all sorts of things, for more than a decade now.
For example, imagine if the evidence was as clearcut that NBA players were juiced as it is that baseball players were juiced since the early 90s. Or consider the way people feel about Derrick Coleman, who for years was regarded as public enemy number 1, while the likes of, say, Dave Parker, a notorius coke-head, never carried the same distaste in people's memories.
Phil, I agree with you about the days of Vince and AI. But remember, that was only partially driven by David Stern and more driven by the casual fan just loving the phenomenal dunks or the little guy with the amazing motor (and for what it's worth, I'm a huge AI fan and a longtime Vince basher). When a guy like KG "plays the right way," he's criticized for not grabbing the game by the throat like Jordan. Lazy announcers, many of them ex-players, ignore the team game in favor of the star-centric style.
In any case, I think we can all agree that the USA team has been a thing of beauty to watch for its teamwork and pace at both ends of the court. The lone criticism you can make of the '08 Olympians is that they have no competition. Thankfully I didn't watch today's slaughter of Germany, but it certainly doesn't look like opposing 7-footers, like China's and Germany's duos, respectively, are going to deter this squad.
Which begs the question: After the American point guard who played for Russia went belly up and Chris Kamen obviously was roasted today, does anybody think playing against one's native country saps energy, or, conversely, provides energy to one's opponent?
That kid from the Virgin Islands, Tim Duncan, did OK playing for our team in Athens :)
For a more genuine example, Becky Hammon seems to be doing well playing for her adopted Russian team on the women's side, and they have a much better chance of getting a medal with her on the team.
I think in general it is just that those playing not for their native country are normally doing so because they weren't good enough to make their home country's team. Can anyone seriously say Chris Kaman should have made the US squad, for example? So it's not a lack of energy but a lack of talent.
That's why Hammon is an unusual case--she is easily good enough to be on the US women's team, but was not invited for whatever reason (I don't follow women's hoops enough to know all the ins and outs), and she already had Russian citizenship for professional purposes and lives there much of the year. In a case like that, why wouldn't you play for what has become a second home for you?
In Kaveman's defense, he had a fantastic season on a very awful Clippers team last year. The man can play, but it hardly matters if you're playing 2 vs 5 or rather 2 vs the entire US team since every player seemed to have gotten minutes and scored.
On Becky Hammon, from what I heard from espn's debates and what not, she was not initially guaranteed a spot. Later, she was invited, but only to try out and not guaranteed a spot. From what I can infer, she expected a spot because of coming in second in MVP votes.
I also have to agree with you and have sympathized with both of these players. After all, if their dream is to play in the olympics, who are we to criticize them and call them anti-patriotic? Both players had competing in the olympics as one of their life priorities. Some people might argue that Becky Hammon did it because of a nice sweet contract rewarded to her and this could be a perfectly valid point. However, the antipatriotic sentiments have got to go...
I finally caught some of the action--most of the 2nd Half against Spain, and the play seemed to reflect what I've read from Britt and others covering the Games.
When (and if) he comes over here to play professionally, I'll be excited to see Rubio. But, I couldn't tell who he was on the floor for the part I watched, and I guess that's my way of saying he didn't stick out better than any of the Spaniards who were clearly overmatched. I hope that his matchups with Brandon Jennings next season are televised in the US. They will be a good indicator of who heads up the draft class.
Since I'm a huge Kobe fan, I'd like to do what KG fans did last season and give him the credit for the amped-up team defense that's on display with his new team. I'm guessing that he--more than LeBron, CP3, or Wade--is the one who sets the tone in practices and workouts, and probably is the biggest difference from the LeBronze crew of 2006. However, I think Coach K also deserves some of that credit. This team is pressuring the ball and the passing lanes much like his Duke teams do, and its talent and athleticism advantage is making it even more effective.
Magic Johnson always refers to the original Dream Team, and the fact that Charles Barkley was its best player. While Sir Charles was certainly an All-Time Great, I doubt many would argue that Jordan, Bird, and Magic, himself, were all better players. There must be something about piecing all that talent together that its not always the most obvious guys who lead the way. I would have thought Carmelo to be the surprise star, but it is D-Wade. Not too big of surprise, though, when you consider what he's already accomplished in his short career.
According to Alexander Wolff from SI, Rubio's not draft-eligible next year.
I don't find that hard to believe at all. Sir Charles, while not winning a championship, was ridiculously talented and played the PF position while being 6'7". You could call him the prototype for Marion, except with more talent. He was a matchup nightmare that was stronger, faster and an outside threat. I have trouble seeing anybody in Europe being able to stop this guy. Before TD and KG came along, you could make a case for Sir Charles being the best PF ever right next to Malone. However, unfortunately, neither of them have the bling to match their fantastic numbers and ultimately lose out to TD and now KG.
To add to your comparisons of the unknown Strib reporter's inability to grasp relative quality of play, it's like saying the NBA all-star game is better than most of the games because of the slam dunk contest and most of the best players are playing aginst each other in the all-star game. It's still meaningless relative to the rest of the games.
The olympics may be more meaningful than the al-star game, but where are the top 30-60 players in the world going to be playing before and after the Olympics? The NBA. And to throw in some Olympic nationalistic ball hefting, I'd say if you'd put the best non-American players of the world and played them together against the best Americans, giving each side equal time to prepair, then throwing them against each other in a best of 7, the games still wouldn't be comparable to an NBA playoff game and they'd still be lopsided victories for team African-American - even without a single player from this or last year's NBA champs.
Re. Blount: Ball is ball and that is all. Good games are had at all levels and venues. What is not good is when play is sloppy, as in not taking care of the ball or when no one plays defense. It is also less pleasurable when a team game becomes an individual's game.
What is most exciting is when teams share the rock, guard the tin, and play with ultimate intensity. Call it ball heaven.
I am quite impressed with the level of the writing and the commenting.
Being from Greece I think I can offer the angle from over here.
To start with, it is almost impossible to watch NBA games anymore. It just seems like such a waste of basketball talent.
If these players could only learn to play within a system, they would have been so much better. Just duplicate Team USA, get them to play under the Greek (or Spanish or Argentinian) system and they will beat the original Team USA by 30 points easy.
That is half the picture.
The other half is that there is no Larry or Magic or Michael any more. I doubt any of the current team members could make it to the original Dream Team (except to take Lettner's place). The reasons for that are another conversation but I would just say that money is the root of all evils.
The third half is that international players have improved their game, not only comparatively to Americans, but also to what they used to play.
Still the limits to Team USA are only set by themselves. If they play to their potential (which they probably don't know how to) they are in a class of their own. If they don't, a semifinal or a final might just slip through their fingers yet again.
Yahsu. It's nice to see all the international voices here and elsewhere on the Wolves' blogs. Over at Hoopus we have folks from Canada, Australia, Belgium, and Wisconsin (rim-shot)...among others.
Let me be the first one to show a little bit of national pride here by saying that a) the US squad does indeed know how to play (I don't think you'll find too many smarter players than Lebron, Paul, or D-Will), b) that Lebron is in Larry/Magic/Michael's stratosphere, and c) the US is simply playing to its strength: up-tempo ball focused on transition offense and nasty defense.
I don't disagree with you that the NBA is becoming increasingly problematic but it is not for reasons relating to the players' skill or inteligence. The NBA focuses too much on its top-end talent at the expense of the team game and up-tempo play. It also has become increasingly disjointed, especially in the post-season where the game can be slowed to a crawl with the changed reffing, increased commercial time, etc. The NBA is also a coaches league. FIBA ball is more of a players' league and you see more of an amoeba approach to playing; it's more organic and open than a league where you have 1 or 2 guys rurnning the majority of the action while the other guys stand around.
If the current Dream Team played a system, they wouldn't be nearly as good because the gap between the US and the rest of the world is athleticism and talent. Period. Again, they play to their strengths and those strengths are best achieved and maximized in getting up and down, running lanes in transition, and shooting early in the clock so the game doesn't get slowed down. No sets, no complicated plays....just get out there and get up and down.
Interestingly enough, this style of play is the same style of play that was run by some of the mid-Century leagues like the ABL. Guys like John McLendon ran up-tempo styles that were in stark contrast to the boring style of play run by some of the more structured teams of the day (note: there is a pretty big racial element to this contrast; I recommend ESPN's recent documentary Black Magic for more of a background: http://espnblackmagic.secondthought.com).
Anywho, the US players are playing it wide open and it's hard to imagine them being better in a more structured setting. Run fast, jump high, get to the rim, and play like hell on defense.
All of this being said, I'd love to see the NBA open it up a bit with a wider lane, shorter 3 point line, more liberal rules on contact in the lane, and lots and lots of dribble drive motion with running lane-based transition play. Up and down for 120 a night.
The 1992 Dream Team had more depth than this group, at least on the superstar, future HOF level, but was no better than this group at the top of the talent pool. Give me Kobe, LeBron & Deron Williams over MJ, Magic and Bird--at least when Magic and Bird were in the tail-end of their careers. That team had multiple 7-foot, future HOF players, and thus, a better front line. If the current group had Tim Duncan and KG, I think their overall roster might challenge the '92 Group.
I agree that the NBA focuses too much on stars and individual play--at least individual guard play. The wide lane (I think) has its roots from Mikan and Wilt, who were too dominant for the rest of the league. It was a deterrent to one big guy dominating the game. Ironically, the illegal defense rules--especially before the updates that allow some forms of zone--have allowed athletic guards to become too dominant for the rest of the league. If it were up to me, they would get rid of any zone prohibitions and further encourage the team defense and offense that the Celtics showed last year.
The first team was fun to watch because the top players really knew how to play the game and the talent gap between the US and the rest of the world was large enough that no one noticed how much Magic and Larry had slowed down. This year, Kidd is slow afoot, Redd offers only 3pt shooting and Howard is raw, but we notice. In fact, if Kidd was played too much, we could easily lose a game, and more nicknames would ensue.
Fortunately for the team defense and offense, people will imitate what works, so that may work itself out.
The '92 team was able to get all of the best American players, whereas this current group got, in my opinion, the four best (Bryant, James, Paul, Williams) but is missing Garnett and Duncan, who would obviously be in the Top 12. One could take Kidd's spot and one could take Boozer's spot. Make those changes, and flip Redd for Ray Allen and you've probably got a team that would beat the '92 team 4 out of 7 times. As currently constructed, though, I'd give the '92 team the edge. Ewing and Robinson were better than Howard and Bosh. Maybe not Howard in Bosh in 3 years, but better than Howard and Bosh now.
I think a lot of the appeal with the 92 team had to do with the intrigue of being the first pro-filled squad. I remember watching those games and they never stopped showing the highlights from the losses to the Russians in 88 and 72. There was also a tad more nationalism at the time with the 1st Gulf War and a lot less cynicism associated with all of the marketing and flag waving being put out there together in massive quantities.
Looking back at the team, and thinking more about it, I'm not so sure they would beat the current team even as it is has its flaws. Magic was coming off a year in which he didn't play in the league, John Stockton would be abused a'la Isiah Thomas at the point by Paul and Williams(remember that Malone put that hard foul on Thomas because he thought he showed up Stockton after he was passed up for the Dream Team), Chris Mullin would be destroyed by any number of current wing players, and if push came to shove in the battle of end-of-the-bench Dukies, Boozer trums Laettner. Kobe and Pippen are probably a push and I'm pretty sure that Lebron could give MJ a run for his money. The original team had Barkley, Ewing, and Robinson...inside players that would pose a big problem for the current squad. Bird would...well, he was winding down at thaht point. Also, let's not kid ourselves: Chuck Daly would coach circles around Coach K. However, I just don't think that the original team could slow these guys down. It's just to frantic of a pace with too much talent to slow it down to a grind. That original team could run up the score because the other teams sucked. This team runs up the score because they are insanely good in transition and defense.
Chris Mullin was First-Team All-NBA in 1992. Dick Vitale calls him the best shooter he has ever seen. At that point in his career, he would not get "destroyed" by anybody. He would probably match up with 'Melo, and get the best of him.
I am a huge fan of Paul and Williams, but I think it's a stretch to say they would "abuse" John Stockton--arguably the greatest point guard to ever play the game, and certainly in the Top 5 of anyone's list.
I agree, though, that it isn't the "no-contest" comparison that many are making, in favor of the '92 Squad. I just think that the backcourt positions are pretty much even, but the great centers on the old team hold a big edge over Howard-Bosh-Boozer.
Chris Mullin was a hell of a player and he could shoot all day long, but the way that the current team plays on defense and on the perimeter...well, I remember watching and loving Run TMC and Mullin could shoot but he had neither sustained greatness nor the game to keep up with any of the wing players that the current US team is trotting out there. He was quite the marksman but was neither on the uber-shooting level as Reggie Miller nor a player that could bring the other tools to the table that the current squad's wing players have. Also, Dick Vitale? Seriously?
John Stockton almost missed being on the team because of a stress fracture in his leg. He toughed it out and it was reported that his replacement would have been Joe Dumars. Jordan, Stockton, and Malone all hated Thomas. Stockton ran the pick and roll to perfection and he was very, very, very good, but this current squad is playing a different type of game and he wasn't even the best point in the league at the time. The Dream Team passed over Isiah Thomas and as bad as he looks now with the Knicks, he was the top dog at the point in 91-92 and proved it against Stockton until Malone took his head off for showing him up.
http://www.makingpages.org/hoops/Malone.danger.html#isiah
As they were in 92, Magic, Bird, Stockton and Laettner would have weighed the team down against the current squad. Mullin would have been problematic on defense and in transition and Drexler/Pippen would be negated by Kobe/Wade.
One of the big problems with this comparison is that the 92 team didn't have to try against anyone. There were no close games, there wasn't even a contest. The current squad is playing some insane defense and is exhibiting perhaps the best transition offense in a long, long time. The 92 team had the great names but some were past their prime and they never had to put together a game where you knew they were honestly going against a team that mattered. If this current squad blows out Argentina by 25-30 and walks all over Spain again in the gold medal round, I think they get the nod as the greatest team of all time because they actually played somebody and everybody (except for the useless Kidd) was in their prime (or about to enter it). Ultimately, when it comes down to it, I think a 2008 starting lineup of Paul, Wade, Kobe, Lebron, and Howard trumps a 92 starting lineup of Magic, Jordan, Bird, Barkley, and Ewing. If you turn back the clock on that 92 team 3 years, there's not question at all, but in 92 and with Stockton and Laettner on the squad along with a retired Magic and an over-the-hill Bird, that's 1/3 of a team that isn't up to snuff with the current version.
It would have been the defense and transition offense of the current squad vs. MJ and the insane front line of the 92 team. That's still a hell of a matchup and I have no idea who would win. I'm leaning towards the current squad.
We're mostly in agreement then, because it's impossible to compare them when one team plays NBA MVP's and 6th Men of the Year in their Gold Medal Pursuit, while the other plays an Angola team that would probably lose to Minneapolis Community College. I just don't like reading that the '92 team would kill this group because of the usual fondness of old players and distorted memories of how great things used to be. It would be a great matchup, to be sure.
Vitale's the man. I love watching any game he's covering. His play-by-play guys used to ask him all the time where JJ Redick stood among all-time shooters and all-time ACC players. Vitale-haters who say he loves Duke too much would expect him to call JJ the best shooter he's ever seen, and maybe the greatest ACC player he's ever seen. He ademately rejected both ideas, saying that Mr. Mullin from St. John's was a better shooter and that Redick was probably a Top-20 ACC Player in history; a relatively modest statement, considering the individual and team success that Redick experienced at Duke.
Here's a bold statement: Stephen Curry is a better college shooter than both Reddick or Mulllin.
I'm an anti-Vitale guy. There's a couple of reasons for this but most of it has to do with not liking someone who screams conventional wisdom like it's supposed to be innovative.
I can't say that I remember seeing Mullin at St. John's, but for the life of me I'd have to say that the 3 best college shooters I've ever seen are Dennis Scott, Jason Kapono, and Stephen Curry.
In the NBA, the best 3 point shooters I have seen are Reggie Miller (bar none), Dale Ellis, and Peja.
Getting back to Curry, I think people completely underestimate just how advanced this kid's jump shot is:
http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Davidson
56% of his shots were from 3 last year and he had a 60.7% eFG (his TS% is a mind-boggling 65%). When you consider that he had a poss% of 31.8 and a %shot of 36 with a ORtg of 121.2 and combine it with a modest FTRate, he had one of the most extreme jump shooting years in college ball history. I'm really surprised it's not getting more attention. Especially with all the Vitale-induced hysteria surrounding Reddick. Curry is twice the player.
The Wolves could have 4 mid to late 1st rounders next year. I'll be somewhat disappointed if they don't walk away with Curry...especially if he shows he can play the point this year, which his coach said he would do so that he could get more experience at the position he'll likely have to play in the NBA. Say what you will about Rubio's potential, but if the Wolves can walk away with Curry in the teens and run out a Curry/Foye or Curry/McCants backcourt with Miller at the 3, they'd be in pretty damn good shape with Foye or McCants coming off the bench as the 3rd guard and Bassy as the backup point.
My god, I'm talking about the 09 draft. Will this season start already? :)
Vitale's enthusiasm is why his fans like him so much--and seems to be why his haters don't like him. I get fired up watching college hoops, so I like announcers who do the same. Some fans hate it when announcers try to explain the game, as if that's not part of a color guy's job--yes, it could seem condescending if it were a 1-on-1 conversation, but there are plenty of casual fans that learn from Dicky V and other color guys. Besides the enthusiasm, I enjoy how he constantly refers to other players and teams around the country...it's hard to follow all the college programs, so it's a good way to stay up to speed, as a fan. His 3S men and All-Diaper Dandy teams are examples of this.
I also like Curry. See the discussions here around late March and I think I was calling for him as a late lotto pick (if he entered this past year). He's a more pure shooter than Redick--and by that I mean he doesn't have any spots he seems to like more than others. I don't think he is/was any better than Redick at 3's. As for comparing the two players, they are very similar. Both relatively small, both great shooters, off the catch and dribble, and both have questionable athleticism that will/has worry/worried pro scouts. I still think JJ can make it on the right team and I think Curry could be a very good point guard--(apparently that's what he'll play next season for Davidson).
Great discussion guys. I'll just chime in with this. I don't know which team is better and some of this might just depend on the era you grew up with, but I think that as far as greatest players of all-time, Bird, Magic and Jordan are on that starting five and none of the 2008 players are. Just count of the championship trophys.
Of course, there is the past prime argument so 1992 vs. 2008 is a good discussion. But, we're talking about mental toughness here. Guys who just did not know how to lose. Say what you will about talent levels, but if it came down to it, somehow or someway, any team with those three on it will figure out how to beat ya. Dang, I might even throw Bill Russell on that 1992 team as the center instead of Ewing and then I'd be sure of the 1992 team as being the best of all-time.
If you plucked Bird and Magic out of 1985, then I agree that the '92 Team is unquestionably better, but they were nearing the end of their careers in 1992. It would be like if Shaq were on this team, and then in 15 years, saying that the '08 team was great because he was on the roster. I'd put Deron Williams-Kobe Bryant-LeBron James up against any trio of 1-2-3's in league history and feel comfortable with my chances, but that '92 Team was deeper with talent and had a bigger and better front line.
Wild, mindless, hopeful speculation: The Wolves should make a move to get Shaun Livingston. Yeah...yeaaaaaahhhhh. That'd be niceeeee.
Post new comment
Blogs
Sports
Baseball:
Warning Track Power by Alex Halsted
Sports:
On the Ball by Britt Robson
Society
Weather:
Dude Weather by Jimmy Gaines
A&E
Fiction:
Write Now! by Terry Faust
Retired
Hockey:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Style:
Hook & Eye
Misc:
Is This News?
Fiction:
Yo, Ivanhoe by Brad Zellar
Food:
Consider the Egg by Stephanie March
Wine:
Beyond the Cask
Food:
Food Fight!
Media:
To the Slaughter
Misc:
Outrage by Staff
Food:
Chef's Table
Guest Commentary:
Just Passing Through
Humor:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Cars:
Road Rake by Chris Birt
Commentary:
Read Menace by Tom Bartel
Society:
The Adventures of Melinda by Melinda Jacobs
Politics:
Defenestrator by Rich Goldsmith
Food:
Breaking Bread by Jeremy Iggers & Ann Bauer
Books:
Cracking Spines by Max Ross
Music:
Hear, Hear by Staff
Art:
The Vicious Circle by 6 Critics
Secrets:
Secrets of the Day by Kate Iverson
Theater:
Seen in the City by Staff
Film:
Talk About Talkies by Staff
- Contact:
- Secrets Staff
- Write to Editors
- Send Press Release
- Reprint Request
- Work at Secrets of the City
- Our Address:
- Secrets of the City
- PO Box 3690
- Minneapolis, MN 55403
- (651) 356-8714
©2002-2009 Entropy Publishing, LLC. No part of this site may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Entropy Publishing, LLC. except that an individual may print for personal use and/or forward articles via e-mail to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes. Thanks to FAMFAMFAM and Tango Project for their icons.
Media Partners
