Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
US Olympians Bury China in Hoops Opener
The opening game for the USA Olympic basketball team was close early--tied even, at 29-29, nearly halfway through the second quarter--almost exclusively because the US were missing their three-pointes while their Chinese opponents were knocking them down. But nobody seriously thought this would be a ballgame, and the 101-70 tally seemed an appropriate gauge of the gap between the two squads.
It's been fascinating to watch the way this team has been put together, and in particular, interesting to note that Mike Kryzewski of Duke, along with Jimmy Boeheim of Syracuse, are alloting the minutes. I've never partaken of the Coach K Kool-Aid, but there is a certain symmetry in him starting Jason Kidd over Chris Paul and Deron Williams at the point--the overrated coach showing deference to the player I consider the most overrated player in the NBA. Anyone with two eyes can see that Kidd is a distant third in terms of both talent and fit on this squad, and yet he gets the opening minutes instead of two much better, much classier players.
Even Doug Collins couldn't help but comment that the Chinese weren't even bothering to guard Kidd, who not only didn't shoot in his 13 minutes on the floor, but didn't drop a single dime and tied for the team lead in turnovers (with Kobe, who played more than twice as many minutes). Throw in aged footwork on defense and the mystery deepens as to why Paul and D-Will hug the pine at the onset.
In fact, the inability of Dwight Howard to develop a shooting touch around the rim, coupled with the emergence of Chris Bosh (both today and in the preliminary games), and the return to health of Dwyane Wade, makes the USA second unit a better ballclub than its starting five--and that's with Lebron and Kobe, who both have been marvelous, among that first quintet. Take away Lebron and Kobe and you've got an over-the-hill Kidd, a still surprisingly raw Howard, and the always questionable Melo Anthony.
By contrast, the bench can run out Bosh, who is easily the most active of the USA bigs; the suddenly resurgent Wade, who didn't miss a shot today, bagging a team-high 19 points on 7 FGs and 5 FTS; either Deron Williams, who played with a fabulous spark today, and/or Chris Paul, who owns the fastest hands of any backcourt defender; and the option of Michael Redd (if you need to stretch opposing defenses) or Tayshaun Prince (if you need a shutdown defender). Keep Lebron or Kobe out there with that group and start engraving the names on the gold medal trophy right now.
I will say this for K and the NBA elite--they are playing with an appropriately monster emphasis on defense, including the point guards not named Kidd guarding the dribble, the bigs and swingmen deterring penetration (Lebron had three blocks today) and the boxing out to prevent putbacks. China had the 7-6 Yao and the 7 foot Yi (who looked out of shape and often indifferent, and was called out by the announcers as the bad actor in contrast to the wet kisses Yao was slathered with) and still got outrebounded, while compiling an assist-to-turnover ratio of 12/18. Much has been made of the USA adapting to the international style of play, which relies less on low post scoring and more on perimeter treys (the line is nearly three feet closer in than the NBA). But I don't care so much if the USA can hit the outside jumper, so long as they can defend it properly. Some of that comes from wearing down opponents with their superior depth and transitional quickness--the Chinese were much less accurate from outside in the second half.
For its part, I thought the USA shot too many treys. They were 7-24 from behind the arc, and 31-36 from two-point land. Got that? To match their scoring efficiency on two-pointers, they would have had to have nailed 20 (and two-thirds of a 21st) out of 36 treys. That 86% from inside the arc came against one of the taller teams in these Olympics to boot. I don't mind Michael Redd jacking up seven treys (he made 3), but Kobe doesn't need to shoot 7, not when he can (and did) break down almost any single defender and have a superstar waiting for the dish and an open look.
Another quibble: the interior passes are too tightly bunched. Don't try to thread the needle in transition when you are four feet away from each other; take it to the hole or dish it to the perimeter or to midrange jump shooters--especially when Howard and his mediocre footwork and lousy shooting touch are the beneficiaries of pounding it inside. Both Bosh and Carlos Boozer looked better equipped to finish.
Bottom line, however, is that this is just a fabulous team. People can yelp about the original Dream Team all they want; these guys would give that crew a run for their money. I know, I know--the proof remains to be put in the pudding. But remember, the caliber of international basketball has improved by leaps and bounds since the original Dream Teamers. Watch how this USA squad wears each and every one of its better-quality opponents out in the days ahead, and, hype aside, make your own judgment.
47 Reader Comments
Britt,
The reason they were shooting threes is pretty much because that's the way the international game is built. Given the shorter arc distance (20.6 vs. 23.9), and the expanding trapezoidal low block, the USA had better hit the outside shot, or teams will zone up and Jason Kidd will/should be sitting on the bench. Bryant, Redd and Melo all better be able to at least loosen up opposing defenses, because I doubt that the USA'ers will be able to pressure Spain's guards like they did the Chinese.
Having said that, USA does have some impressive studs on the team. If Howard can hit some free throws, these guys from front to back can beat anyone down the court. King James was a monster yesterday, and he seems like the emotional and physical leader of this crew. He was superb on both ends yesterday. Still, it's in the half court where the gold will be won or lost.
BTW, Yao Ming...a class act.
Britt,
You didn't mention anything good about me in this column at all. Mediocre footwork, eh? You might be forgetting how young I am still right now, and you oversee my value to the team just because all you care about are about my weaknesses. I am here to contribute, because I was called and asked to help the team. I am just trying to do my thing to the best of my abilities and if you can't appreciate that, I can't do anything about that.
Are you sure Bosh is a better option than me? He's basically a tweener, and surely will not be able to fare better against much taller teams. This is the first game, you can't judge things with just one game.
Bottomline, there should be a reason why you are a writer and not a coach, or even a part of the USA basketball staff, and this is one of those reasons.
Also, if you want a sample of my mediocre post moves or footwork, just stop by the USA team practice or shootaround. You might also want a sampling of my elbows or something else...
Well Dwight,
I will say that you are a much better basketball player than you are a blog commentator or hoops analyst. Actually I didn't forget how young you are: If you are going to criticize me for ripping your mediocrity, don't immediately offer up a reason why you are mediocre. And then to fall back upon the "hey I was asked to help and I'm trying really hard" as the reason not to critique the weaknesses you've shown, well, as my Italian friends say, that's weak sauce.
As for Bosh and the "much taller teams"--you mean the ones without 7-6 and a 7-1 NBA players?
"This is the first game, you can't judge things with just one game." Yep, it's all relative. For that matter, Dwight Howard is at the very beginning of his career and it is premature for me to criticize him at all...or for you to be praising or defending him. For all we know, he could turn out to be the biggest malingerer or greatest star of all time. So let's just stop talking until all the information possible is in and his career is over.
I have never claimed to be as smart about basketball as any coach or staff member, so the criticism in your next-to-last graph doesn't sting very much.
And the last graph....well, let's just say that a guy pretending to be another guy and then using that pretension to imagine kicking the crap out of someone reminds me of the hapless suckers who responded to those old Charles Atlas "don't let him kick sand in your face!" ads.
First of all, I'm in complete agreement with Peter about Yao. The guy is class through and through and it should be noted that in the biggest basketball game (in terms of viewership) in the history of the game, it wasn't just an American who brought the most viewers to the table. A few additional thoughts:
1- One of the things that I think is overlooked in this Olympics is not just that the Spanish team is clearly the #1 challenger to the US squad, but that one of the big reasons why baseketball is so big in Spain is because of what happened in Barcelona in 92. I think we'll see a similar growth in Chinese basketball in the next 16-20 years. All those guys on the Spanish team are post Dream Teamers...they played in a country that was absolutely electrified by the 1st Dream Team.
2- Getting back to the present team, I actually think that the top 5 players on this squad (CP3, D-Will, Kobe, Lebron, and Bosh) would give a serious run to the original Dream Team. Kobe and Lebron are currently pulling the old MJ/Pippen dolberman defensive team from 3/4 court and Paul and Williams are pressureing the ball in opportune times; making calculated gambles that really put pressure on the opposing team's ball handlers. Bosh just has to sit back and make sure that he gathers a fair share of the defensive rebounds. Also, let's not forget that a matchup of the 2 Dream Teams would be played in an NBA style; MJ may have been the best talent on the floor, but Lebron + Kobe > anything the 92 team has to offer.
3- This team could have really been pushed over the top had they subbed Mike Miller for Redd (Redd is a streaky shooter who isn't as good off the catch-and-shoot as Miller is), Brad Miller for Dwight Howard (the US could use a big who could hit the mid range j and pass), and Rip Hamilton for Melo.
4- Kobe is really growing on me with his international play. There were a couple of plays where he and Lebron ran as fast as they could with their arms up at one of the Chinese guards. Each time the guy got freaked. Kobe's D and passing have been outstanding.
5- Kidd is terrible.
6- Coach K's name should be shortened to K. He's acting more like Special K in this tourney. I get that the guy may be a tremendous motivator and I'm sure he really riles up the troops at shareholder meetings, but he's never been able to work the x's and o's.
7- Jerry Colangelo is ridiculous. We've heard over and over again how this team is different and that the US is on a long-term plan to win. Can someone please tell me how this team was put together any differently than in years past? 8 of the guys led their teams in scoring and Prince is the only guy that could qualify for a role player. They're doing it like they've always done it (when they've won): by overwhelming their opponents with superior talent: Wade + Lebron + Kobe + Paul + Williams + Bosh = the best 6 man collection on the planet. The reason why the US lost in 2004 was because the 2002 World Championship team got embarassed, NBA stars flocked to the 03 FIBA American Championship squad and then a big chunk of them bolted before the 04 Games leaving the team with less than its best talent. The world has closed the gap (as evidenced in 2000 when things were close against the best talent), but when the US puts its best 5-6 players on the court, they win. That's the plan. It's that simple. Anything else is just filler for Nike commercials. Speaking of Nike, I'm sure they're really torn apart by the fact that Howard isn't tearing it up. That spot was KG's and...well, I'm sure they're torn apart by him not being there either.
8- Outside of superior top-end talent, this team will win by its superior fitness. This is a big issue in soccer but it's also going to be an issue for opposing teams when gigantic players like LBJ, Howard, Bosh, and Bryant run their opponents up and down the court for 4 quarters. The US came to this tourney in peak physical condition and it really showed against the Chinese.
9 Why is Michael Redd on this team again? What is his career mark from 3?
10- I know it's kind of premature and homerish, but regardless of how his game transfers to the NBA, Kevin Love should have a future home in international play. From interior passing to mid range shooting to his outlet passing, I can't think of a better type of player to run out there at the 4/5 off the bench than Mr. Love. This team needs a big man who can play the high post and not get all screwed up by the expanded lane.
11- Can the NBA please adopt FIBA rules and dimensions? If this game is really going to take the next big global step to really compete with soccer (and I think it can), it needs a solid set of rules and regulations. With the NBA getting smaller and more guard oriented, and with big men becoming more and more hybrid (the Wolves seemingly have 2 of the last throwbacks), it would be nice to see the NBA adopt the wider lane, the shorter 3, and some of the rules of international play. More ideas to change the NBA here: http://www.canishoopus.com/2008/8/11/590516/if-i-ruled-the-world
S+P--
First things first: I love the way you corrected my misspelling of Bosh's name without directly calling me out. (For those late to the party, I had it Bosch, like the guy is some phantasmagorical painter or something.)
I agree that Yao is a class act, personally. He is also overrated as a basketball player. And let's not delude ourselves about his primacy to yesterday's game: If Yao and the Chinese had been playing Angola, it wouldn't have been the most-watched game in history; and if for some reason he couldn't have played yesterday due to injury, and everyone in China knew it, it still would have been the most-watched game in history.
As always, there is plenty to love and dislike in your observations. You have an unhealthy love for the last name Miller--Brad Miller over Dwight Howard, under any circumstances, is not a wise position to take. The times when Brad Miller wasn't being beaten down the floor by his opponent would be the time Brad Miller was administering a hard foul. And much as I like Mike Miller, and can see why you'd want to opt out on Michael Redd, I don't think Redd needs to be scapegoated. Yes, he plays bad defense. But I think he's a terrific three-point shooter. I know Miller is a tad over 40% at trey for his career, versus Redd's 38.7%; but that difference is negligible and Redd, unlike Miller, has almost always borne the burden of being the primary scoring threat on his team.
But your comments on Kobe are insightful and accurate. I actually thought his likeability factor started going up during last year's regular season. And we agree on Kidd and Coach K, of course. I can make a legitimate case for every other player on this squad. Kidd, not so much. it's funny how certain guys get reputations for playing "the right way" and others are cursed forever as selfish malcontents. The USA better understand the importance of the point guard matchup when they play Spain and Calderon. Williams is the best defender against him; Paul will make him work hardest at both ends of the court, and Kidd is a vacation by comparison.
Finally, I'm going to use this space to respond to Peter's dictum that the international game is three-pointers uber alles. I maintain that if the US can defend opposing threes, and plays a full-court transition game on offense, they can drastically reduce their three-point attempts and still have a very potent offense. I would prefer that to a succumbing of treys, even at the international length. As I pointed out in the piece, If the US had shot nothing but threes yesterday, they would have need more than 20-36 3FG to match the scoring efficiency they mustered by going 31-36 from inside the arc.
Wow, first there was a post with perspicacity, now phantasmagorical? It's these types of references and words that keep me coming back for more. It's almost like this blog is some sort of garden of earthly delights. Now *that's* an obscure Hieronymus reference :) If only you could convince the IT guys to make this page into some sort of triptych.
Anywho....
Outside of Yao, international bigs are mostly of your Gasol type: moderate rebounders who have learned to play outside of the lane. Until Howard develops something approaching an offensive game, he's not an international player. He's a fantastic NBA player and his raw talent is pretty impressive, but skill-wise, he's simply not there yet. Brad Miller had a pretty damn good year:
http://basketballvalue.com/player.php?year=2007-2008&id=65
Howard can really hit the boards but Miller doesn't embarass himself on the boards while providing FT%, a mid range threat, a positive ppr (impressive for a big man), and a little bit of rough-and-tumble.
As for Redd, I have him on my top-overrated team (along with Richard Jefferson...it should be fun in Milwaukee). The US team needs an outside shooter. It also needs a guy who can be a threat from mid range so that defenses don't sag down towards guys like Howard who don't seem to...well, I'll stop with that sentence because I've already made my bones about Brad Miller. Mike Miller is the better choice here because his eFG is 10 points higher than Redd's while he gets to the line far less. In other words: Mike Miller is a superior mid range to long range player who not only hits outside the arc at a greater clip but who can knock down the catch-and-shoot after Lebron/Kobe/Paul/Williams/Wade blaze through the lane and kick it out. Redd is the primary scoring option on Milwaukee. He's used to isolations and dribbling into his shot. Redd and Melo are also the only players on the squad with negative adj +/-. They can score but that's about it. This team needed a shooter, not a scorer. That's about the best way I can put it between the two players.
I also kind of side with Peter about the 3 ball in international play. China simply didn't have the horses to get it done, but a packed-in zone is going to cause problems for the US. They are masterful in transition and they simply overwhelmed China with their ability to get to the rim, but against teams like Greece, Russia, and Spain, they are going to have to hit some outside shots and defend the backdoor cut. It's been the international MO against the US since 2000 when Lithuania missed a 3 to beat them and when France put a bit of a scare into them by not allowing them to pull away. Trade 3s and force them to shoot over you is the approach to playing the US. They were efficient against China because China's guards sucked and the US's perimeter players could get into the lane whenever they wanted. It's Pete Carril's 1996 Princeton v UCLA example on a world-wide scale. Of course, it's been taken to another level with the increased importance placed on the 3 (see Dribble Drive Motion offense), but it's the same idea: against superior talent, slow it down, limit transition buckets, shoot 3s or easy layups/shots off of back cuts, and hope for a close game where anything could happen. This is one of the interesting things about Spain: can they be the 1st international squad to really run with the US? They're not a Carril-style team at all. They're more NBA than any other team I can remember the US having to face. Yet another example of how the 92 Dream Team affected Spain. If they win, I can't imagine them doing it without a bit of proficiency from 3. I really hope that the US can limit their 3s, and I completely agree with what you are saying about them needing to extend their transition game as much as possible, but I think Peter hits it on the head that the 3 ball rules in international play because it's the only way to negate the US's superior open court talent. As this tourney goes on, defenses will move farther and farther back from the line if the US doesn't develop an outside game.
I tend to agree with Britt that defending the 3 is better than shooting it. Well defended 3s lead far more often to transitional basketball, and that makes it impossible for oppenents to settle into their packed zone. That's what leads to the ridiculous FG% that Britt is citing.
I disagree with both you and Britt about the identity of our three point shooter. Although giddy about having Miller on our team, and personally preferring him to Redd, I would like our three point specialist on team USA to be of the 3/defensive specialist variety. If we are giving ourselves a focus on defense, I don't mind Howard a bit on this team, as he deters penetration and kickouts, but I don't think there's any excuse for having players that don't defend the perimeter.
All that said, Spain should be a fun game to watch, even if they it leads to another blowout, it will be an entertaining one.
Here's a player that I wished received more attention: Kevin Martin. He's an amazingly efficient scorer who can get to the line and hit the 3 with equally top noched ability. Here's hoping he's in the mix the next time around. I think a USA backcourt of Martin, Roy, Williams, and Paul would be a nice rotation.
This is just a personal preference as to the way I like to see basketball played, but if you have guys that can hit 40% from 3, you take a boat load of 3s. The 2 best ways to score in basketball are layups and 3 pointers. Everything else is nice but...well, let's just say that I'm a big proponent of the Dribble Drive Motion offense. I absolutely love the fact that the US got layups and took a bunch of 3s. It's what they should be doing. They were 5/21 today against Angola. :
http://www.nbcolympics.com/basketball/resultsandschedules/rsc=BKM400B06/index.html
Kobe was 0/8. Still, with the shorter line and their size, they need to keep taking 20+ a game. They are going to hit between 65-80% of their shots from inside the line thanks to their size, fitness, and transition. If they hit anything approaching 35-40% from 3, they'll start blowing people out by 30-40. 8/20 would open up the driving lanes even more. It would have also given them a 30 point victory. They need to keep shooting them and hope that Kobe doesn't go 0/8 again. D-Will should be getting the 8 3 point attempts/game.
PS: I think Jason Kidd's goal in this Olympics is to not take a shot. He was 0 for 0 again today.
I agree with most of your points, but subbing Melo for Rip? Coming into the tourney, Melo was arguably the best FIBA baller in the NBA since the Dream Team. I can't understand why that is, but based on that he was an absolute lock to participate.
First of all, it was a brain fart on my part. I would sub him with Billups. I have no idea why I said Rip. Paul/Williams and Wade/Billups would be the constant 1/2 rotation with Kobe, (Mike) Miller, Prince at the 3 and Lebron, (Brad) Miller, Bosh and Boozer bringing up the 4/5.
The way I look at the US squad, it has 3 upper, upper, upper level scorers in Lebron, Kobe, and Wade. If a game ever came down to the last few minutes, these guys are more than capable of getting their own for the sake of the team. After these guys, I'm looking for the all-star/super-star players to bring something extra to the court. One of the best ways to get a sense of what each player brings to the court is with adj +/-. It's a stat that measures the relative on/off value of a given player compared to his team. Melo, who played on a 50-win squad, had a negative adj +/-. He and Redd are the only players on Team USA to hold that honor. Both guys are tremendous scorers who do very little else well. Melo is an especially putrid defender and his team defense is even worse. As a team, Denver fared about 5 points/100 possessions better on defense when Melo was on the bench compared to when he was on the court. He's not a good enough offensive player to balance this out. His rebound rate is lacking for a player of his size, he's not a tremendously good passer, and did I mention he sucks at defense?
A guy like Billups brings more than just scoring. He can hit spot up 3s, he can pass well, and he does enough things off the ball to have a positive impact. Outside of scoring, Melo just doesn't bring a lot and there's simply no need to have a guy who can only score out there when you're going to have Kobe, Lebron, or Wade on the court at any given time.
Kidd Is the man tradional point guard who pushes the ball and get teammates easy buckets.
Basketball will never ever nor any other sport be bigger than soccer. dont get me wrong i love basketball heck i like it more than soccer but being born in south america i know the diff of how many ppl like basketball as opose to soccer. soccer is like chocolate to the world almost every1 likes it. there is a few ppl who dont but then agian prob never tried it or played it in this case. soccer is just a complete team effort to accomplish a goal i mean i know ppl dont like it cuase you could watch a whole game and not watch a goal but thats what make each goal special
Grab a name anonymous. It can be a handle, but please have one here so we can keep one anonymous apart from another.
Basketball has a long way to go to compete with soccer but it's the only other sport that has a chance. It's a game that can be played anywhere, is primarily urban, doesn't need a ton of equipment, and has both a formal and street style of play. It's probably passed soccer in China and its made huge leaps in eastern Europe, Spain, and Argentina. When played correctly, it's every bit the beautiful game as soccer.
I'm kind of curious as to why Howard was chosen over Amare Stoudemire. I didn't watch the China game, but it seems like Stoudemire might be more productive at this point in his career.
In that same vein, the selection of big guys was kind of confusing to me overall. It seems like the team would be better off with one fewer perimeter player and with a guy like Tyson Chandler on the squad, or replacing Boozer with Chandler. True PFs don't seem to have a place in international hoops at this point.
Stoudemire was coming off a knee injury, and when USA basketball asked him about his commitment, he cited the injury concerns as reason to ask out. I for one would also have loved to see Amare on the team, seeing as how he as developed his mid-range jumper and would be the perfect finisher off pick and rolls. Only problem would be his suspect defense.
Good stuff. I only caught a small part of the China game, but it's fun to read these opinions as the Games go on.
One question I have for both Britt & SnP is: Why the Coach K bashing? Britt calls him overrated and SnP says he doesn't know x's & o's. I'm almost the furthest thing from a Duke fan, but it's mostly because it's the closest thing there is to a perfect program. When he has talent he makes Final 4's, and when he doesn't, his teams still compete for ACC Titles. I'm not sure how he could be overrated, or without incredible x's and o's knowledge. I love Duke's pressure man-to-man and admire the way it rattles teams that come into Cameron Indoor. As a player, I'd rather play for Roy Williams, who emphasizes the fast break above all else, but I certainly respect Coach K's emphasis on man-to-man defense (inherited from mentor Bob Knight) and spread-the-floor offense. I get that Jason Kidd should not be getting many minutes, but it seems the rips on Coach K are extending beyond that single decision.
Krzyzewski himself is the first person to admit he's not an x's and o's guy. The last time I remember reading this was in a piece in Time:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000835,00.html?promoid=googlep
Kryzyewski's appeal has always been managerial. He's the Tom Peters of basketball. His success is always talked about in terms of "process", "culture", and "environment" rather than actual basketball stuff. It's strict managerial BS and I don't doubt that it's the type of thing to make Jay Bilases out of us all. I'm convinced that 1/2 his popularity comes from making speeches to corporate boardrooms about vague qualities associated with winning through acceptance of this or that process. Upper level management loves guys like Coach K: it takes a special kind of motivator to get middle management and the grunts to buy into corporate bullshit. Go watch those ridiculous Nike videos and watch Coach K drop managerial nuggets left and right. The stuff between him and Colangelo is especially nauseating.
This next comment may get blurred a bit by the internets, so I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm not mocking you, but teaching 1-on-1 defense is just about the easiest thing you can do in basketball. It worked out alright when he was pulling in top flight talent that stayed long enough to completely buy into the system, but when the Grant Hills and Laettners started to turn into the Corey Magettes and Elton Brands, who have since turned into Kyle Singlers and Greg Pauluses...well, the "coaching" at Duke may turn out some fine business men, but getting over-entitled idiots like Paulus to slap the floor like the good ol' days does not equal good coaching.
Outside of Shane Battier, what Dukie can you think of that is in the NBA where you look at him and say, "Gee, that's how they bring em' up at Duke." Maybe you can with Brand and Boozer, both of whom made cold-hearted business decisions to leave the squad they were with.
Coach K is all about managerial style; playing hard, playing the "right" way, letting the folks above you know that you will stick to the process and give it your all...and a bunch of other BS that you can find in the business section at your local Barnes & Noble.
Maybe he's the perfect coach for the US: a guy who can get massively rich players to buy into a "system" that is little more than trying your best and "playing right". I just hope that the US doesn't get locked in a close game where time management and player rotation becomes an issue. Coach K may have to lean on Jim Boeheim for advice.
Teaching man defense might not be as complicated as matchup zone, but 90% of college teams play it, and about 89 of that 90 percent play it worse than Duke does. That includes the years when Paulus is out there slapping the floor. Some of that might be motivational tactics, but Coach K clearly understands how to over-play the wing and not get beat back-door all day. There are some x's and o's to that success.
Pointing to the NBA Dukies, I'm not sure what bearing it has on Coach K's abilities as a college coach. However, I'd add Grant Hill and Mike Dunleavy to your list of guys that were clearly benefitted by their years with Coach K. Also, Jason Williams, but he had that accident and wasn't able to show it off in the League.
Regarding the Duke Offense, I'd make an NBA comparison to last year's Hornets, in terms of the way it just "looks" efficient from start to finish. I'm not saying that always equals wins, but there is an obvious purpose behind their spread the floor, penetrate and kick style, and while they can get overly reliant on 3-shooting, they usually have the guns from outside to make it work.
Finally, if the US gets in a tight situation, I'm comfortable with the guy who drew up "The Laettener Play."
I guess all I can say is that simple stuff works with fantastic talent. The Laettner play was a full court heave to their tallest player who just happened to be their best shooter. It's like giving credit for Bush for invading Afghanistan after 9/11: what else could you have possibly done?
Duke is what it is because Coach K is a tremendous motivator who gets some very good talent to buy into playing hard and simple.
NOLA and Duke are pretty far apart as far as offensive styles go. NOLA is running a one man show based on Paul's speed and ability to run the pick and roll/pop. Paul has a tremendous amount of leeway of where he can pick his poison and push the tempo and add a bit of oomph to the offense. Duke has actually transitioned its offense from a motion-style offense to more of a spread set in the past few years (mostly because they don't have a back-to-the basket guy). Back when they had the players to run it (i.e. big forwards), Duke's 3 out, 2 in motion offense was one of the most simple offenses in all of college ball. They would put 3 guys on the perimeter, dump the ball in, cut,a and fill. Again, this is stuff that is run in 7th grade. The difference between 7th graders and Duke is that guys like Carlos Boozer don't play for my 7th grade AAU team. Duke has since gone with something that looks more like the pre-Shaq Suns than anything else. NOLA has 2 big guys that can run the pick and roll/pop or give its guards some nice angles. I will give Coach K credit in that he's finally started to change his offense to reflect his talent. It probably had a lot to do with watching Florida win with a spread, but at least he's not sticking with the same-old offense that stopped working when the Brands became Boozers who became Sheldon Williams who became...well, nobody. It took him a few years to make an actual coaching adjustment and it's things like this that make me say he's not an x's and o's guy. Now, if he can't get some wing players to hit the numbers of 3s that will make this sort of thing work, or if he can't get guys like Nelson and Singler to penetrate the lane like they need to, he's back at square one and it will probably take him another 3-4 years to match up his offense with his personnel.
Teams like Duke or the Suns have 1 undersized big man and a bunch of guys who can handle the ball and dribble drive. A spread offense is as good as your guards. You can score some points but if you don't have guys that can punish you from 3 or penetrate, you're SOL.
Finally, Grant Hill would have been what he was if he went to Michigan or Duke. He was a player. Jason Williams is a sad case but there's no way to know how that would have played out (Bobby Hurley too). Dunleavy took his lumps early in the league and it wasn't until he got spit out by Nelly ball that he started to turn it around.
If you want me to find an NBA Superstar who holds that title because he went to a certain college, you've got me stumped. Many of today's players didn't need a lick of college to become All-Stars. I'm just pointing to guys that went to Duke and improved their games while playing there. Grant Hill was one of the best NBA rookies of my lifetime (along with Co-ROY J-Kidd, who is also being bashed heavily in today's comments), and some of that is due to the guy who was coaching him for the previous four years.
College basketball is the ultimate coach's game, and I certainly think that it can be "overcoached"--so I don't take your comments about Coach K as altogether negative. That said, the continued excellence at Duke, both in years with great talent and with more average talent, are evidence that its coach knows what he's doing and how to put players in the right places, from a strict X & O's perspective. High school players don't arrive with a great understanding of how to beat college defenses. It takes a lot more IQ than pro ball, since defenses aren't restricted by zone-rules. Coaches deserve more credit for the wins and more blame for the losses than the pro guys, who in some instances, can practically roll out the ball and watch.
It's a little bit ironic that you point to Shelden Williams as an example of Duke's lesser talent in recent years, because his 5th Foul against UConn was the only reason Coach K didn't win a 4th title. Okafor found it easy to ring up points on Minnesota's Nick Horvath in the final minutes of that game. I'm guessing some x's and o's went into Redick and Williams taking Ben Gordon and Emaka Okafor to the wire in a Final 4 game.
I wasn't being specific when I compared Duke to NOLA. I only meant that both teams "look efficient" in that there is little wasted time or motion and they often get the kinds of shots that they want. Duke has lacked a great playmaker since Jay Williams graduated, but have still done well with great shooters, and the x's and o's to get them enough open shots.
Given that Duke has been, by far, the most successful college basketball program since Wooden's UCLA teams, I find it hard to believe that its coach is overrated or ignorant on drawing up strategies. If his talent level doesn't always look great at the NBA level, it only shows what type of coaching is done while they are playing in college.
"Given that Duke has been, by far, the most successful college basketball program since Wooden's UCLA teams, I find it hard to believe that its coach is overrated or ignorant on drawing up strategies. If his talent level doesn't always look great at the NBA level, it only shows what type of coaching is done while they are playing in college."
....ah yes, the Mother Theresa argument: both faith and the absence of it is proof that God exists. She is a beacon of belief whether she believed in it or not...just like Coach K's grads are proof of his great coaching, whether they are successful or not.
I think we're at yet another agree-to-disagree moments. You find it ironic that I site Williams as a clear-cut example of the declining talent at Duke and you point out that he may have fouled his way out of a championship while I see Williams as the last guy who somewhat fit the 3/2 motion and who now gets 13 mpg in Sacramento. I also find it ironic that you use an example that is an encapsulated version of what happens to Duke when the Williamses of the world get subbed for the Horvaths....or the Boozers for the Williamses.
I think you misstate the fundamental nature of the modern NCAA coach. It's more management than x's and o's. I'd also argue that there is a difference between player development and coaching. I also think you're off with the take that college ball requires a higher b-ball IQ than pro ball.
My point with Coach K is that he's a management brand. Hell, I even call the poor bastard by his nickname because it's been burned into my head. He's a captain of basketball industry who is very good at getting his players to buy wholeheartedly into some very basic basketball concepts. However, in terms of the pro and international games, or in terms of who I would want managing a stacked roster, or the last few minutes of a game, or even determining what kind of offensive set should go with the available talent, please, please give me anyone but Coach K.
PS: as far as a coach that can develop NBA talent, I'd say that Billy Donnovan is on quite a role. His players "know how to play" and it's more than slapping the floor and hustling.
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3525880&categoryId=2459788
This may be kind of off topic but I found this little clip kind of funny. Coach K takes Team USA to Ellis Island to talk about immigration and the American Dream. While I'm sure it's quite possible that some of the young men on Team USA descend from the West Indies or something like that, something tells me Coach K didn't exactly completely think through the idea of talking to the guys about coming to America by choice and to fulfill a dream.
Coach K also introduces us to the Team Song, which funny...is now a commercial for Nike. It's not real.
Coach K also sums up his approach nicely: "When you're coaching, you're leading." "You have to allow them to lead." "It's about taking it to a higher level." ...and other assorted stuff from West Point/Wall Street. Perhaps I'm sensitive to this sort of thing because I was in the military, but his entire approach is pulled right from West Point teachings and you can see it in every butter bar during his first assignment. Again, this isn't a bad thing, but it's different than being an x's and o's type coach.
How about this: he's the type of leader that needs a good MSgt to know the nuts and bolts. He's a Captain/Major who needs a MSgt to make the damn thing work. There, that's the best analogy I can come up with.
PS: I think it's obvious that I was enlisted. I worked for a living :)
I know that, for many bigtime coaches, there is more "management" than actual "basketball genius" required for their success. This is a more modern trend and the ones who take this thinking too far (Dan Monson) fail. Billy Donovan is an example of the modern coach, but he wasn't exactly tearing it up at Florida before that great group he put together, and is now gone. Coach K has been at it longer than that, and descends from one of the great basketball minds of all time, in Bob Knight. I don't think that their tremendous leadership abilities necessarily mean that they aren't equally great thinkers of how the game should be played. I see it more with Knight, since his practices have been better-advertised, but there are clear fundamentals that they go absolutely apeshit when violated. I mean things like getting crossed by your man when he cuts through the lane and things like that. You call them simple, but they are the difference between good and bad defense and Duke and Indiana (when Knight was there) have spent decades being the best in the country at them, and they win national titles by not "beating themselves." I know he's not a Jeff Van Gundy-type, who can review tape and tell each guy how many dribbles a certain player likes to use when he goes left versus right, but that's a difference between pro and college ball, and most players at either level only follow basic fundamentals, anyway. There have been coaches with similar talent levels to the teams that Duke has had in the past 25 years, but none have 10 Final 4's and 3 National Titles. None are even close, except North Carolina, who has had two great coaches in the time that Duke has had one.
I guess if you define x's and o's coach by being able to draw up super-complicated plays and defenses, then Coach K is not near the top of the list. But, if you draw it up by teaching players to play offense and defense together, and at a high level, he's probably alone at the top of the list. Like I said in my first post, I'm not a Duke fan, but sort of like cheering against Favre all those years--you start to respect them over time.
I hear what you're saying and I'm not denying that he has had success. I guess it's a picky thing for me. I'm something of a music snob and I'd compare Coach K to a band like Nirvana: very popular and good at what they do but their success was in large part lifted off of other bands while more deserving acts like Pavement never got the airplay they deserved.
It's not just that he runs simple sets, but rather he's never been the kind of coach to out maneuver his opponent down the stretch or dazzle his opponent with technique. He's a motivating prep guy. He's also describes himself as not being the greatest x's and o's guy. I don't think I'm insulting the guy or breaking any new ground by describing the guy as he describes himself...admittedly, with a bit of anti-Duke relish. It's not just that it's not complicated, it's that he knows his great strength and he uses it while leaving the x's and o's aside more than other guys. He is a fine leader of young men. If I had a son who was good enough to play at that level and who I knew wouldn't make it to the NBA, Coach K would be hard to turn down, as I'm sure the young fella would learn a lot about what it takes to succeed in business. If I wanted my hypothetical son to maximize his basketball talent, Duke moves down the list.
BTW: UConn is close and Billy Donovan is off to a nice start. Donovan also had a Final Four before the Noah/Horford/Brewer group. From Mike Miller to David Lee to the 2-in-a-row group to Speights to Nick Calathes (next year), the guy has been putting solid, developed talent in the NBA for a while now. I think Kansas is going to have a hell of a run under Bill Self. If Calipari sticks around at Memphis, he should be able to have a steady stream of talent into the NBA.
I was about eight years old when it happened, but Coach K apparently did some maneuvering against undefeated UNLV in the Final 4. Also, the aforementioned Kentucky game involved a lot more than just that one shot. How does a college coach "dazzle with technique?" He could run the Princeton Offense, as Georgetown now does, but I doubt he would have won as many games.
Donovan did make a Final 4, but it was kind of a Cindarella run (if I remember right) and had a major drought in the many years between Final 4's. David Lee came in with other big-name McDonald's All-American types and they never amounted to anything as a team. But--you can't take away his back-to-back titles. The only other guy to do that in recent memory is...Coach K. UConn has two titles, but has a whole lot of mediocre seasons mixed in. I really like Calhoun and one of my favorite college games ever was when El-Amin beat the 38-1 Duke team (probably the best college team I've ever seen--still can't believe they pulled that off.) Even though Calhoun is 2-0 against Duke in big games, I still gotta give the major edge to the guy with 10 Final 4's and 3 titles. Plus, how the hell do you lose to George Mason when you have 4 bona fide NBA guys on your team? Roy Williams is the second-best coach in the land today. He's less of an x and o's guy than Coach K, but (lately) has had a big edge in talent. He does not run any sets for most of the game, but emphasizes pushing the ball more than any other major conference coach. Get Sean May and Tyler Hansbrough to run the floor like most guards do and the wins pile up. Bill Self has been very good at Kansas and last year broke through the tournament struggles that plagued him before. A lucky win against Memphis (I was very bitter about losing two pools because of that game) but still a national title. Hell, Minnesota might have one of the best coaches in the land. He immediately turned a team of nobodies into a competitive Big 10 team and is signing recruits faster than anybody. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Tubby has us in the Top 10 in 2 or 3 years. I just hope he sticks around long enough to make a lasting impression.
Here's a great coach that apparently can't recruit: Bruce Weber. He came into Illinois with all that talent, and almost won the title, but hasn't been able to reload at all. He lost Eric Gordon to the cheating Kelvin Sampson, so that must've hurt. But I really enjoy the way Illinois plays. Unbelievably hard defense, and efficient but aggressive offense. If he can start bringing in more talent, he'll win a lot of games. If not, he'll get fired.
Always a pleasure to read you guys in debate, as it's a formidable matchup.
For what it's worth, my snap judgment on Coach K comes from the notion that he always gets a bevy of McDonald's All Americans and has what in many ways is the perfect basketball environment. Now kudos to him for essentially building that environment, but from what I've seen, Coach K doesn't seem to coach better than his talent very often if at all. And while I think that it is much harder to judge a coach by the success or lack thereof of his players in the pros in the post-Garnett era, where so many kids don't stay long enough to learn much, I don't think the kids who stayed at Duke for 4 years have distinguished themselves very often in the pros. By contrast, some programs seem to groom pros beyond the college capability--Illinois comes to mind--and some did both really well, as with Wooden's recruits at UCLA--remember Sven Nader, who never got off the bench much for the Bruins but was a serviceable pro.
In any case, I'm admittedly a dunce about college hoops so if I'm totally wrong in my suppositions and Coach K is everything people claim him to be, I'm happy to be corrected. But those Nike ads that ran a year or two ago I recall as being grossly hagiographic, and that too probably upped my bile level on the guy.
If there is a legitimate criticism of Coach K out there, it is that he did not win enough titles with the talent he brought in, in the late 90's and early 2000's. The Brand Group and the Boozer Group only won a single title between them, and each year Duke was loaded with bigtime talent. They suffered major upsets to UConn and Indiana with teams that were the heavy favorites to win it all.
Hey now, I'm not calling your argument illegitimate. I may disagree with it but I'm not dismissing it completely. I think I've hit on the player development angle, but I don't think the x's and o's one is illegitimate...especially when the man admits it himself.
I do remember the UNLV game and it is a perfect illustration of what Coach K does and doesn't bring to the table. That UNLV team was horrifying. They had absolutely KILLED Duke the year before and they had run off something like 45 games in a row before they met the Dukies. It's not that UNLV was eeking by in close games, they were abso-fing-lutely killing people. Destroying them. Duke was the 1st team not to back down. They talked about it ad nauseum leading up to the game and it's the one thing that each player talked about after the game. They played their same style of ball and...well, they had Grant Hill in his 1st Final Four. I think this is the game where the floor slapping got started. It's pretty much the ultimate Coach K the Motivator moment and I'm sure it gets shown to this day to freshman. They faced the big bad Running Rebels and they didn't back down.
I think Coach K is the ultimate corporate system guy. His great strength is getting players to buy into something that they will work together to achieve. They "do it right" and "play by the rules" and my point with the guy is that the system itself is not what makes him a successful coach. It's a system that is not very flexible and does not maximize individual talent, which can be a big plus in basketball. This is why he's in the commercials and giving the boardroom speeches. They're going to do what they do and not back down....whether they got beat by 30 the year before or whether it took a full court pass/turnaround jumper to win. It's the ultimate corporate model in basketball. It's much too static for my tastes and there is no innovation, no acknowledgment of the power of individual prowess, and...well, again: it's all stuff that I've heard word-for-word from butterbars just out of West Point. I'm not saying the man is not successful. I'm just saying that his idea of coaching is just about the opposite of where I come at it from and it is built more on ideas that are at home in the boardroom rather than the hardwood. If you add in the fact that he admits to not being a great x's and o's guy, I don't think that's illegitimate at all.
I should have been more clear. The lack of multiple titles around the year 2000 is the only blemish on his resume'. You're knocks on him are more geared toward how he does it, versus what he has done. I'm sure certain coaches, if given his rosters every year, could have done more with it--but I have felt for a long time that college hoops is a game where coaches dominate everything and the winningest program must have the best coach. If a winning program is ridden with scandals, that's a different story, but that has not been the case at Duke.
I think it's also a philosophical matter for me. I see in Coach K's approach a method that I associate with the type of leadership that places politics over policy. It's not that his sort of approach always leads to a cold shoulder to the nuts and bolts of this, that, or the other, but that it's the type of approach that fosters a distaste for the very best of American professionalism: the New Deal bureaucrat and Lester Fremon from The Wire to name the first two examples that come to mind. (Yes, I know these are over generralized examples.)
Coach K's entire approach towards leadership (and I've read the books: http://www.amazon.com/Leading-Heart-Successful-Strategies-Basketball/dp/0446676780 and http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Basketball-Coach-Keywords-Success/dp/044658049X) is managerial and based on getting the team to accept and internalize the group's goals without being threatened by top-down leadership. Of course, this approach is the ultimate wet-dream of top-down leadership, but that's an argument for another day. This approach is great in boardrooms and military units. However, there is a strain of this approach that is quite destructive. Once you start getting a group of people operating on an internalized system, context and purpose can become problematic concepts to certain end users and operators. On the basketball court, it's easy to keep ones eyes on the prize. In the board room or pentagon, it's pretty easy for this type of insular thinking to go flying off the tracks in spectacular fashion. To date, my corporate career hasn't been as long as my military one, but the guys in the military with the Coach K leadership books typically were highly tenured majors or light birds at the Pentagon who liked to blog and read the Weekly Standard while preparing for their 2nd life as a civilian contractor on the other end of procurement. (I imagine Joe Repya to be a Coach K kind of guy.) They were also the guys/gals that passed along the emails about how Hillary was a whore who shouldn't be elected else the apocalypse should make an appearance. I kind of kid about this, but there is something contained within Coach K's approach that leads to a very nasty real-world strain of "leadership" that values the appearance of things over actually knowing how shit gets done. The real world application of West Point leadership needs MSgts and civilian control or a simple target to be effective. Once it passes a certain line of complexity, you can have all the Keywords for Success in the world or Lead with your Heart until the cows come home, but if you don't know how to operate this specific piece of equipment or if you don't know how this particular line of legislation affects MilCon dollars for your general's pet project...well, you're FUBAR'd.
One of the great beauties of pre-60s liberalism was its attention to detail. If you go back and read Harry Truman's 1948 Democratic nomination acceptance speech (the "Turnip Speech") you will find a forgotten era of politicking that was fire-breathing in its detail and hard policy.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/links/truman_speech.html
The entire New Deal and Cold War were based on very detailed and policy oriented liberal arguments and they represented a pre-identity based way of viewing social issues. Back then we could talk about class like we meant it.
Again, this is a philosophical argument, but Coach K's managment approach is a direct afront to the heart of good ol' fashioned liberal American professionalism. You don't need keywords to know that you bust your ass all the time. You know your shit forwards and backwards and you speak up like a cowboy when you see something that isn't right. Threre's nothing wrong with a little subversiveness and I don't need to drink the Kool Aid to know what team I play for. All of this management/market-based bullshit has absolutely destroyed the best of American professionalism and maybe Mike was a good coach way back when, but Coach K is something of an abomination to me.
Oh well. I've made way more out of this than I should have. Most of my distaste for the guy is admittedly philosophical and the result of having read his ridiculous Tom Powers esque books.
I'm not familiar with all of your references there, but I think I understand your general point. I will say, though, that a coach's appearance and credibility (at all levels, especially college and pro) are important and maintaining them is part of getting the whole team to buy into a single gameplan. Roy Williams was able to get Shaddy McCants to buy into the team concept and win a national title. I suspect that, if he played for a lesser-respected coach, he would have won less games and probably averaged 25 ppg. Coach K has the same type of "aura" or presence about him that commands respect, and while it may make fans nauseous, it's probably part of the reason that he succeeds. I doubt it would have worked for the Lakers, though. He (and Donovan) were smart to stay in college, where they belong.
And on that last point we can agree.
Ball Don't Lie had a nice little take on Coach K:
Mainly because Coach K (we're hoping) should have the central tenets of international play hammered into their heads. Be aware of plays happening away from the ball. Prepare for poor refereeing. Guard guards, forwards, and centers at the three-point line. Know your opponents. Attack early in a possession offensively. Don't wait for that screen and assume that three of your teammates are going to stand around on the weak side of the court, offensively, as is the NBA custom. Wake up.
That's what we hope Coach K is going on about. We hope he's not prattling on about redemption and pride and revenge and some sort of strain of manliness. We're hoping he's working on weak side rotations. Free throw shooting. Things that actually matter.
And starting on Thursday against Greece - sorry, Angola - things start to matter.
The blueprint has been bandied about incessantly. The motivation should be there. Let's see if Team USA has it in them.
....exactly. Everyone in the damn world knows the blueprint of how to beat the US. It's a pretty simple approach. They need to be absolutely prepared for what everyone knows is coming.
"teaching 1-on-1 defense is just about the easiest thing you can do in basketball."
S&P - I know you know your basketball and I believe you said you even have some youth coaching experience. But, I'm going to disagree with you here. There are two parts of coaching man to man defense. For the first part, 1-on-1, its all about attitude and hustle and I agree this is easy to teach. You tell your player to stay between him and the basket - move his feet. If the player cannot follow this instruction it is not because he has a lack of ability but rather a lack of effort. This is not that hard to coach and a motivator and a teached of the basics can coach this.
But, man-on-man defense, that has players playing five-on-five takes a little more than emphasizing effort to coach. I'd argue that it is more difficult to coach than zone defense. It requires a player to give more than effort and to have an understanding of how to play the game and every players role out on the court. The player has to see the ball and his man and must be able to recognize offensive sets and plays being run. It requires help side defense and a trust in your teammates when you are guarding the ball. Just as offensive players must know how to move without the ball to be effective on offense all defensive players have to be judged as defenders away from the ball as much as by their ability to defend on the ball.
I'm not a coach K fan, but I think its interesting he came from the Knight school of coaching and I agree that it takes longer than a year or two to get an entire team to play great man on man defense. Coach K as well as Coach Knight are not as effective as college coaches as they once were because coaching man-on-man defense is difficult and takes time to develop, especially young players who are not used to playing defense like it should be played. If there is any such thing as pure basketball its something that is as close to the perfection of a KG led Celtics playing man-on-man defense which isn't just 1-on-1.
I suspect you agree and were making a different point, but I thought I'd say it anyway.
Fair point. I get what you are saying about hustle and desire and I don't disagree with that. My comment about coaching man defense is that it is the most fundamentally simple thing in all of basketball. You keep your butt between your man and the bucket, you shuffle your feet, and you keep your hands up, and did I mention that you have to MOVE YOUR FEET!!! (sorry, it gets yelled a lot) There is a communication aspect to solid team d, but the fundamentals are simple and they are simple to teach. Even things like help side defense, jumping over screens, and not getting your teammates killed by not calling out the pick are issues that require better communication skills than they do basketball IQ....although that never hurts. My point about it being simple is that I can draw it up on a clipboard and explain how to do it to a novice in about 10 seconds. Getting that player to go full tilt, and to go full tilt while communicating to his teammates is what makes a man d work. I think this is more of a semantic difference than anything. I agree that there are 2 parts of getting a good man defense. I just call them coaching and motivation. I compartmentalize the two. It has more to do with the age level and skill of my players than anything else. They're all beginners and we're not at the level where I'm going to be getting upset about effort yet. I'm more worried about them grasping basic concepts and realizing that communication will do them wonders on the court.
I disagree about how hard it is to coach an effective zone defense compared to an effective man d. I get that it takes a long time to get players motivated to play all out on man d, but you can run some pretty complicated zone defenses that require precise rotations and switches on the fly, and that require the C to make some calls as he sees them. With some of the older teams I've been a part of we've taken some pretty complex zone defenses and actually run something approaching a play with the press. We ran traps and zone ups and it was all a bunch of coordinated zones. You can see a lot of zone concepts in things like help defense or double teams. It's much easier to recover to an area than a man when you bust down into a double or triple team. That being said, fundamental man-d concepts are at the heart of it all: move your feet, keep your hands up, keep your butt between the ball and the bucket and...MOVE YOUR FEET!!!
Howard looked ugly out there. His rebounding and dunks were great as usual, but every other offensive move he made was horrendous. He couldn't make a 6-foot hook to save his life, and there were more than a few missed layups.
Bosh played a far superior game this time.
People are always free to embarrass themselves by claiming Jason Kidd is a better floor general than Chris Paul and Deron Williams in these Olympics, just as they are free to call me an idiot and use bad grammar. But what these yahoos unfortunately always seem to have in common is the cowardice of anonymity.
I don't respond to "anonymous," I delete it. You want to make your case, identify yourself with something identifiable. Although I disagreed with it, everyone who wrote have enough substance in their post--another requirement--to have left it up with an identifiable moniker.
And while we're on the subject, Chris Paul destroyed Jason Kidd in last year's NBA playoffs. These Olympics, with their emphasis on quickness and long-range shooting, favor Paul and Williams even more than the NBA format. If you want to content yourself with the idea that Kidd had more "hockey assists" than anyone, feel free. And if you want to go to the tape and chart the play by play and tally up each player's plus/minus--which unfortunately isn't done in the Olympic totes as it now is in the NBA--you might be in for a rude surprise vis a vis Kidd and CP3 and D-Will.
The play-by-play stats are kind of goofy for the official score, but D Will's first 2 floor appearances were +7 and +9 against Angola. Kidd had +3 and +2. Again, the official score is kind of goofy (they don't re-state the lineups at the beginning of each quarter and sometimes players just appear without an in/out), but even with a passing glance it's kind of easy to see just how much better the team is with D-Will and Paul in there in place of the over-the-hill Kidd. If this team ever has a close game, D-Will, Paul, Kobe, Lebron, and Bosh better be the lineup to bring it home with Wade acting as a 6th man. I can already see a situation where Kidd and Howard would be on the floor when it counted and this being a problem.
I'm not going to get into a discussion of whether or not Kidd is over-rated. However, I will tell you that the Chinese TV announcers (and me) were floored with his passing in the first half. There were a couple of Joe Montana worthy tosses in there. Those, more than anything else (other than defense, perhaps) served to turn the tide on the Chinese run in the first.
It's interesting to me that - again, in the Chinese media and among my friends - there's a perception that China played a great game. Partly, this has to do with the fact that nobody is under the impression that the fast-break-and-dunk basketball that defined the US win would cut it in an NBA game or with a less athletic team. That is to say - the Chinese really believe (and I'm inclined to agree) that they play a purer form of ball.
What does "purer form of ball" mean? Didn't they loose by thirty-something? Isn't dunking and overall athletic ability part of the game. The Chinese squad is lacking not only in athletic ability but also in the execution of basketball fundamentals. It is just that their luck of athleticism is more pronounced compared to their other deficiencies. Pure form of ball is such a silly term to use. It brings to mind the reaction of a group of rednecks when Dylan first picked up an electric guitar.
"Pure ball" sounds suspiciously like something out of Hoosiers. I won't cross the line completely, but I think it has to do with the makeup of the Hoosiers. It's BS. The US got to the rim and put the ball in the hole. They played full court attack defense and passed the ball crisply. They shot something like 80% from within the arc. That's something better than pure ball, that's amazing ball.
I understand the Hoosiers point. It makes me bristle, too. But, if I may: I'm currently watching the US women lay an 84-38 beating on Mali (given, not a b-ball superpower), and the Chinese announcers are in awe of the flawlessly executed plays (by the US) producing this mis-match. I understand the difference between the men's and women's game. No problem. But I do think it's interesting to consider what kind of scores the US would be running up if it chose to run the occasional set. Too many egos on this team to allow for that. But it's on my mind, and it's been on the mind of Chinese announcers.
A few things about FIBA play:
- There is a pretty clear blueprint how to beat the US. You're going to see a lot of zone defense, a lot of high offensive sets (check out how far teams like Greece and Australia play their frontline up in a 2-3 set), a lot of big men near the 3 point line, and a lot of pick n roll/pops (pnr/pnp).
- One way to negate the effects of sagging zones with lumbering Euro bigs is to shoot early in the possession. The US may not be running traditional sets, but they are running in lanes and you can see players zig zag to their lanes in transition. The goal is to shoot early and often and they are running most of their structured offense in transition so that they don't have to mess with a full defense that is packed in with a deep 2-3 or switching man d. There is the problem of when they don't get an early shot off of they miss and offensive rebound. In these cases, they have relied too much on 1-on-1. That being said, they are the best 1-on-1 players on the planet and it's probably a whole lot easier to tell guys like Paul, Williams, Kobe, and Lebron to "get to the rim" than it is to run sets against guys everyone knows they can get by. This is where solid 3 point shooting should come into play. I'd love to see a dribble drive motion proponent coach this team. I'm kind of partial to this offense because I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I think it would work gang-busters in FIBA play.
- FIBA ball is a more fluid, player-based style of play than the NBA. From its time out rules to the 8 second backcourt violation (which is the same as the NBA) to its stance towards hand checking and physical play (Greece is a team of brutes) to the wide lane, FIBA ball encourages free play with lots of pnr, high sets, transition play, and downright thuggery in the lane. The NBA is more of a coaches/top-players league where there are a fair amount of sets, 1-2 man isolations with 3 guys standing around, and overbearing refs. Granted, the refs suck in international play, but they generally let em' play. Team USA has talked a lot about getting 3 year commitments from NBA players so that they can build the type of team cohesion that FIBA teams have, but they still go at it kind of backwards. We still have a superstar stacked team and even 2 man duos like D-Will and Boozer don't see a ton of court time together. It would be nice to see the squad choose a bunch of duos that have shown chemistry together. Paul/Chandler, D-Will/Boozer, Paul/West, Billups/Hamilton, etc. This way, when things break down and they can't get a transition bucket or early 3, they could run pnr/pnps. Hell, even handoff plays can be effective in this setting if you have wing players that can create off the dribble.
- When you build a team based on individual talent, you're going to see a lot of zone defenses. There is simply no way for a FIBA team to match up 1 on 1 with players like Wade, Kobe, and Lebron. Even in close games (see Australia), these 3 were able to go 1 on 3 or 1 on 5 and get to the rim. It's simply hard to get into a situation where you can run traditional NBA sets against this type of competition. Again, I'll go back to the 96 Princeton game vs. UCLA: in order to minimize the effect of superior talent, you run a lot of high sets, minimize transition, try to slow it down, and pack it in on defense (with a lot of thuggery in the lane).
"That being said, they are the best 1-on-1 players on the planet and it's probably a whole lot easier to tell guys like Paul, Williams, Kobe, and Lebron to "get to the rim" than it is to run sets against guys everyone knows they can get by."
I agree with this. The one thing this team needs to fight is the urge to adjust too much to their opponents, rather than make their opponents adjust to them. A bit like Dallas, when Don Nelson got Avery Johnson joining him in small-ball in 2007. When you have Kobe, LeBron and the two best point guards on Earth, you let em play and don't overthink it. Emphasize defense, because the offense will always score enough points. They could set screen after screen, but there is a lot of energy spent running offenses, too--and they would probably rather reserve it for the terrifying defenses they can throw at inferior backcourts.
Kidd says Greece will get rough with Howard and Melo, trying to get in their head. I hope so, because I'd like to see how Superman reacts...he got punked a little bit by Detroit, when they made fun of his lower body strength or something...it would be fun to see him accept a physical challenge and start tossing people around.
Nicely put. I think something that gets lost in talking about Team USA is that no matter what group of players you have from around the globe, you play to your strength. If you have a team with Wade, Kobe, and Lebron, your strength is giving it to one of these guys and letting them attack. This isn't rocket science. If I have a guy who can jump out of the gym, has a sick handle with both hands, and is 6'8" 250, I'm not running any other plays, sets, etc when I know that he can break down whoever is on him or make the right pass when the defense collapses.
That being said, they are going to need to make some outside shots at some point in this competition. Part of the blueprint to beat Team USA is that you catch them on a down night. If they have a bad shooting night against a team that can pack it in, limit transition buckets, and shoot 40% or above from 3, they are vulnerable. Hell, any team is vulnerable against an opponent like that.
My personal take on all of this is that if the US continues to play like they have been on defense and if they can continue to execute their transition d, they have very little to worry about. Their transition offense right now is insane and as long as they can continue to get buckets early in the possession while guys like Kobe and Lebron are giving it their very all on defense, I don't see them losing. The only way it happens is if the above situation comes true (opponent limits transition buckets, shoots well from 3, and packs the d in) and Coach K continues to put out hodge-podge lineups that seem to be based on little more than trying to find the hot hand. D Will needs to start and be given at least 6-8 3 point attempts in their next game. Have Paul and Lebron run some pick and rolls with both guys going at the rim. Pair Kobe and Wade so that Kobe can do his defensive/passing thing and Wade can attack, attack, attack. Let Kidd carry the Gatorade cooler. Run a full court press for the 1st half and gamble like crazy before the ball crosses 1/2 court.
I'm sorry, this has nothing to do with basketball, but what group of rednecks were listening to Dylan before he went electric, I know many off his fans were turned off by his use of electric guitar and basically accused him of being a sell-out. But really you think rednecks were listening to Dylan?
Sorry, I'm being a dick but you sound really pretentious in that last sentence there, but, hey, at least you've read the Metamorphosis.
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
