Why didn't Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan play for the redeeem team in 2008?

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830406]You’re all free to love or hate whoever you want if you can make a good point. The idea that one person is the reason team USA lost when the primary thing he does that gets criticized was not done by the team before and after him who lost just makes it a tough case. Replaced with a dude shooting Shaq numbers they lose. They lost with eight All-Stars and finished behind New Zealand before he ever played for team USA. But the team he was on lost because he was there and not because a list of impressive names doesn’t necessarily win in a national ball, which has been proven by them losing like….15ish times with nba players.

team USA loses all the time. They were literally one shot from losing five tournaments in a row with something like 30 Hall of Famer’s, but the reason they lost the one Allen Iverson was there is Allen Iversons shot selection.

We go out there and get in a dogfight with a squad of nobodies and role players with Kobe, LeBron, and Durant there at the same time with the justice league behind them as support and we are here acting like Allen Iverson ruined team USA that has not played up to the talent it has for like 27 years.

team USA lost with a loaded squad in 2004 for the same reason they have lost I wanna say six tournaments with teams that shouldn’t have. You watch the shit happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and can’t get it through your head that these talented lineups no longer mean you should win. The 2014 lost the same reason they lost all the other times. The talent disparity isn’t what you think it is because of the names on the back of the jersey because as I’ve been saying on here for 20 years…..on the same floor there isnt nearly the difference fans want to believe there is among groups of good players.

Iverson being top whatever all time and Duncan being top whatever doesn’t mean you just hand one of them the ball and they kick somebody’s ass because you never heard of them. I could understand thinking it the first time you saw it but after you see it seven or eight times, it’s probably about time to adjust your thinking.

most of the time team USA just plays shit decent for the kinds of teams they face. They send all timers over there and can barely defend NBA third stringers playing internationally. Even great fundamental guys like Duncan were getting shit on and having to be pulled for foul trouble in a matter of minutes. Guards who barely get a shot off in the NBA are out there dancing around all league defenders and throwing floaters to the heavens. The third string guard on like a 32 win warrior team ran wild and almost beat team USA in back to back Olympics with a squad of people who wouldn’t get picked up the park at a glance. Thinking shit is a simple as one guard shot selection just feels like people aren’t paying attention.

at what point do you just accept that your old idea of what should make an international team dominant was wrong?

The actual CBA did better in a tournament during an NBA lockout than eight All-Stars did when they came back. None of them being Allen Iverson.

how do you have these facts available to you and still think throwing big names at the wall automatically means the resulting team is supposed to dominate?

Maybe…..just maybe…basketball isn’t as simple as you’d like it to be.[/QUOTE]

It's very possible they lose no matter who they sent and who coached but they sent an awful team and probably the wrong coach certainly for the players they gave him. Iverson and Marbury leading the charge with a bunch of rookies wasn't going to get it done

[QUOTE=tpols;14830392]It's not even that...

It's about what you appreciate leads to winning basketball. I "like" iversons game. It's fluid and aesthetic and remarkable.

Does it really contribute to winning? Maybe when we were teenagers and he could juke everybody out and be the most popular kid for it.

At top levels of competition though it becomes stagnant. That hero stuff wears out. You eventually need to bring other facets to the table which he never brought.[/QUOTE]


this is the other side of it, and it goes way way beyond Iverson. There is no particular style that consistently translates to winning. We just choose to ignore the many many people who play the styles you think lead to winning who never won anything. A bunch of names will no longer win international ball but traditionally, it is giving you a pretty good shot in the NBA.

and even the few people who manage to win without a team of the right names to a man spend their career mostly losing.

fans are just so convinced they know the game they ignore all evidence of what they say should win, mostly losing. It’s easy to say the style Russell Westbrook plays with doesn’t win and to assume the style John Stockton plate with would. But the fact is John Stockton was given an MVP caliber partner for about 15 years backed up with defensive players of the year and All-Stars taking a small roles to win and 20 points per game six men and great defenses or high power offenses and great coaching and did literally nothing Russell Westbrook didn’t. Lose in the first round with 55 win teams…61…fail all the time. Don’t hear a peep.

and every single one of these players be at Iverson or Westbrook or Carmelo or guys like Dominique before them have the same supposed purist talking about how they played, doesn’t win games while ignoring that plenty of time, they win more than people who play the “right way” do even one surrounded by talent.

Those players just aren’t polarizing so they escape all the criticism. There’s like 80-100 people in the hall who never get mentioned who never won shit. MVPs with high shooting percentages taking three All-Star teammates and losing in the first round. Don’t hear a word. But let Westbrook take a team that should’ve won 35 games and win 50 and lose in the first round with a poor shooting line you would think he was trying to invent a time machine travel back and kill Doctor Naismith with the damage people act like he’s doing the game.

Chris Mullin can lose with two other Hall of Famer’s in the first round. But we don’t talk about is his style was just not prone to winning. There are so many teams of people who play nothing like Allen Iverson who are loaded with talent and don’t accomplish as much in the playoffs is he did without these questions.

It’s not even playing the result. It’s extremely selective playing the result. People I would personally put three tiers ahead of Allen Iverson take better squads and win less and do so with less criticism.

you can put Steve Nash, Amare, Shawn Marion, and Joe Johnson on the same team and lose. You could put Moses Malone, Dr. J Charles Barkley Mo cheeks and Bobby Jones on one team and loose. Never hear about it. But Allen Iverson wins like 50 games with a lineup that should win 14 and wins a playoff series and nobody gives a ****.

entire topics on what his team didn’t do 15 or 20 years later, while in the same league two MVP, first ballot Hall of Famer’s are on the same team with two additional All-Stars and accomplished precisely dick.

when it gets right down to it, there are no results showing his supposedly cancerous style hurts teams any more than any other style. You just have to ignore the hundreds of times better teams with people Nothing like him fell apart. And people are entirely willing to do that. He switch his teams and the team he left wins like three more games with an different all star guard and gets eliminated later in the playoffs by the same team that eliminated him and there are topics about it. 15 years later. Steve Nash leaves a team that added a 6th man , and it immediately began the most successful run in franchise history with that much less talented core even making the finals

Like I said, it’s all really really selective because the narrative has to be framed to fit what we feeeeeel. Not what is.

Allen Iverson’s flashy shot jacking style is easy to criticize but the actual results are right in line with or above the results. Highly acclaimed players get with the kinds of teams he had. And that goes for the NBA or international. This is just another example of it. Allen Iverson’s cancerous style ruins the team then you replace him with two super efficient top 15 or so all time players in their primes one of them coming off winning the NBA title in dominating fashion, and finish the exact same place… both of them better than they finished with the squad full of all star before Allen Iverson was there.

The criticisms just make a lot more sense in theory then when you look at the actual results. There’s no more real world evidence Allen Iverson hurts teams than there is for 50 Hall of Famerswho don’t get that criticism. Guys like him are just easy to pick on in a time ”inefficiency”is the buzz word and groupthink has people afraid to stand away from the crowd.

Shitting on people like Allen Iverson is the easiest thing to do on a board full of people who have their opinions assigned to them by basketball reference. You think it through and start looking at the actual career accomplishments of a lot of people you don’t have shit to say about because their numbers don’t draw negative attention?

You’ll quickly realize how unfairly the criticism get spooned out over a certain type of player who traditionally doesn’t really do any worse than most people who get a pass.

1 game elimination style tournament could make anybody a winner or loser but are we allowed to point out what makes a winning or losing style of play?

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830419]this is the other side of it, and it goes way way beyond Iverson. There is no particular style that consistently translates to winning. We just choose to ignore the many many people who play the styles you think lead to winning who never won anything. A bunch of names will no longer win international ball but traditionally, it is giving you a pretty good shot in the NBA.

and even the few people who manage to win without a team of the right names to a man spend their career mostly losing.

fans are just so convinced they know the game they ignore all evidence of what they say should win, mostly losing. It’s easy to say the style Russell Westbrook plays with doesn’t win and to assume the style John Stockton plate with would. But the fact is John Stockton was given an MVP caliber partner for about 15 years backed up with defensive players of the year and All-Stars taking a small roles to win and 20 points per game six men and great defenses or high power offenses and great coaching and did literally nothing Russell Westbrook didn’t.

and every single one of these players be at Iverson or Westbrook or Carmelo or guys like Dominique before them have the same supposed purist talking about how they played, doesn’t win games while ignoring that plenty of time, they win more than people who play the “right way” do even one surrounded by talent.

Those players just aren’t polarizing so they escape all the criticism. There’s like 80-100 people in the hall who never get mentioned who never won shit. MVPs with high shooting percentages taking three All-Star teammates and losing in the first round. Don’t hear a word. But let Westbrook take a team that should’ve won 35 games and win 50 and lose in the first round with a poor shooting line you would think he was trying to invent a time machine travel back and kill Doctor Naismith with the damage people act like he’s doing the game.

Chris Mullin can lose with two other Hall of Famer’s in the first round. But we don’t talk about is his style was just not prone to winning. There are so many teams of people who play nothing like Allen Iverson who are loaded with talent and don’t accomplish as much in the playoffs is he did without these questions.

It’s not even playing the result. It’s extremely selective playing the result. People I would personally put three tiers ahead of Allen Iverson take better squads and win less and do so with less criticism.

you can put Steve Nash, Amare, Shawn Marion, and Joe Johnson on the same team and lose. You could put Moses Malone, Dr. J Charles Barkley Mo cheeks and Bobby Jones on one team and loose. Never hear about it. But Allen Iverson wins like 50 games with a lineup that should win 14 and wins a playoff series and nobody gives a ****.

entire topics on what his team didn’t do 15 or 20 years later, while in the same league two MVP, first ballot Hall of Famer’s are on the same team with two additional All-Stars and accomplished precisely dick.

when it gets right down to it, there are no results showing his supposedly cancerous style hurts teams any more than any other style. You just have to ignore the hundreds of times better teams with people Nothing like him fell apart. And people are entirely willing to do that. He switch his teams and the team he left wins like three more games with an different all star guard and gets eliminated later in the playoffs by the same team that eliminated him and there are topics about it. 15 years later. Steve Nash leaves a team that added a 6th man , and it immediately began the most successful run in franchise history with that much less talented core even making the finals

Like I said, it’s all really really selective because the narrative has to be framed to fit what we feeeeeel. Not what is.

Allen Iverson’s flashy shot jacking style is easy to criticize but the actual results are right in line with or above the results. Highly acclaimed players get with the kinds of teams he had. And that goes for the NBA or international. This is just another example of it. Allen Iverson’s cancerous style ruins the team then you replace him with two super efficient top 15 or so all time players in their primes one of them coming off winning the NBA title in dominating fashion, and finish the exact same place… both of them better than they finished with the squad full of all star before Allen Iverson was there.

The criticisms just make a lot more sense in theory then when you look at the actual results. There’s no more real world evidence Allen Iverson hurts teams than there is for 50 Hall of Famerswho don’t get that criticism. Guys like him are just easy to pick on in a time ”inefficiency”is the buzz word and groupthink has people afraid to stand away from the crowd.

Shitting on people like Allen Iverson is the easiest thing to do on a board full of people who have their opinions assigned to them by basketball reference. You think it through and start looking at the actual career accomplishments of a lot of people you don’t have shit to say about because their numbers don’t draw negative attention?

You’ll quickly realize how unfairly the criticism get spooned out over a certain type of player who traditionally doesn’t really do any worse than most people who get a pass.[/QUOTE]

Stockton had a cheap owner and a coach(not to mention the comedian that preceded him) that wouldn't be fired even when they went from 3rd to 1st with two of the greatest players ever(did it again with Deron and the legendary Boozer). The so-called DPOY that was completely useless other than being big and being able to keep his arms up in the air close to the rim. Everyone would want Stockton on their team if they have a clue at all. Not everyone would want AI

[QUOTE=tpols;14830420]1 game elimination style tournament could make anybody a winner or loser but are we allowed to point out what makes a winning or losing style of play?[/QUOTE]

It would seem like standards have changed. In the not to distant past Utah fans wouldn't have liked The Bum. But they do. All I can figure is Mitchell made it acceptable to be a low efficiency gunner? No way Sloan would have put up with either. For me it's not just about winning or losing. I loved last year's Jazz team outside the Bum because they played hard and unselfish. Most of their games were close despite the overall lack of talent. Much more enjoyable than watching iso

[QUOTE=tpols;14830420]1 game elimination style tournament could make anybody a winner or loser but are we allowed to point out what makes a winning or losing style of play?[/QUOTE]


absolutely and it’s exactly the kind of abstract in the weeds conversation I would like to have. But if we’re going to have it, I would like it to consider the fact that whatever style you picked is going to have a tremendous number of people who in fact did not win anything even when given the talent to do so. That’s where I live these days. Trying to understand what isnt obvious.

I have absolutely nothing wrong with you or anybody thinking it’s generally best to not shoot all the time. If most of your shots don’t go in. Broadly speaking that’s obviously true. Investigating the results of this specific situation? It would seem hard to blame such a play style for losing when the extreme vast majority of losers didn’t play that way.

we are letting five or six dozen people go almost completely without criticism when they get similar results to people we criticize all day because we have an easy means to attach it via analytics and numbers.

Big picture wise I think my argument across a wide spectrum of stances I take on here might just come down to “There isn’t THAT big a difference”.

I feel like half the subjects I talk about come down to that in one way or another.

Everything and everyone being closer than the hot take nature of sports talk wants to believe.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14830421]Stockton had a cheap owner and a coach(not to mention the comedian that preceded him) that wouldn't be fired even when they went from 3rd to 1st with two of the greatest players ever(did it again with Deron and the legendary Boozer). The so-called DPOY that was completely useless other than being big and being able to keep his arms up in the air close to the rim. Everyone would want Stockton on their team if they have a clue at all. Not everyone would want AI[/QUOTE]


Want whoever you like. I want Stockton. Hes with no close competition other than a season long love affair with Andre Kirilenko my favorite player in the history of your organization. I ****ing love John Stockton. I’ve also come to really appreciate Steve Nash. And I’ve always liked Chris Paul.

But you know what? Put Allen Iverson in all those situation having played with the many MVPs and All-Stars and Hall of Famer’s those guys got to spend large stretches of their career with and if they lose? Every single person like you would be suggesting they could have won with an ultra efficient pass first guard who made people around him better. And every single person who hates on him now would nod in agreement.

We would say that if you give Steve Nash Dirk +3 all stars, orAmare, Marion, the sixth man of the year and an all defensive three and D player or the lob city clippers or MVP Harden or booker and Kevin Durant they would win, and it was Iversons cancerous style that prevented it.

I just find it funny.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830426]Want whoever you like. I want Stockton. Hes with no close competition other than a season long love affair with Andre Kirilenko my favorite player in the history of your organization. I ****ing love John Stockton. I’ve also come to really appreciate Steve Nash. And I’ve always liked Chris Paul.

But you know what? Put Allen Iverson in all those situation having played with the many MVPs and All-Stars and Hall of Famer’s those guys got to spend large stretches of their career with and if they lose? Every single person like you would be suggesting they could have won with an ultra efficient pass first guard who made people around him better. And every single person who hates on him now would nod in agreement.

We would say that if you give Steve Nash Dirk +3 all stars, orAmare, Marion, the sixth man of the year and an all defensive three and D player or the lob city clippers or MVP Harden or booker and Kevin Durant they would win, and it was Iversons cancerous style that prevented it.

I just find it funny.[/QUOTE]

Karl Malone wouldn't have been the 3rd leading scorer in history playing with AI not that Sloan and Iverson would have lasted long together. He'd have been relegated to the Tyrone Hill role of standing around watching Iverson shoot prayers against triple teams. Could he run a pick and roll? Same story with Amare. Would he have thrown a lob to Griffin or Deandre or would they just be standing around waiting for scraps?

Yeah, Allen Iverson would turn Malone to Tyrone hill. Sure.

The issue is what did maximizing Karl Malone actually win the Utah jazz that Allen Iverson didn’t win with the actual Tyrone hill? What did the beautiful symmetry with Amare and Marion actually get the Phoenix Suns? What did lob city do exactly?

Mark Price and Brad Daughtery had a beautiful two-man game with a solid supporting caste. Extremely fundamentally sound both of them. What came of it?

What did all these little efficient guards with great teams accomplish in reality to oppose whatever theoretical damage Allen Iverson would’ve done in place of them?

instead of losing in the first round with 55 and 60 win teams, and blowing a bunch of gigantic series leads, were they have simply lost in less remarkable fashion? Maybe missed playoffs a couple of seasons? What did any of these people do in reality that having a player like Allen Iverson takes away?

Every one of them failed miserably with MVP, caliber teammates over and over and over and over. We just choose to look the other way. Throw some braids on one of them and drop that shooting percentage a few points and we would act like every one of those guys would’ve had success they never had in reality if they were given the chances they already got.

as I said, the criticism isn’t truly results based. It’s selectively applied results based.

as I said wins and losses aren't everything to me. Last years Jazz team was certainly much more joyful to watch(when The Bum wasn't on the floor of course) than Mitchell and The Bum iso and 3's for 48 minutes

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14830440]as I said wins and losses aren't everything to me. Last years Jazz team was certainly much more joyful to watch(when The Bum wasn't on the floor of course) than Mitchell and The Bum iso and 3's for 48 minutes[/QUOTE]

people being fine with efficiently scoring less points than required to win the game is kind of my point, so I’ll thank you for making it. When it gets right down to it, people are complaining about a style even without much tangible evidence that opposing styles do more given similar talent. I’d be fine with it if people could just be real. All this winner and loser shit while ignoring almost everybody being losers just strikes me as weird.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830419]this is the other side of it, and it goes way way beyond Iverson. There is no particular style that consistently translates to winning. We just choose to ignore the many many people who play the styles you think lead to winning who never won anything. A bunch of names will no longer win international ball but traditionally, it is giving you a pretty good shot in the NBA.

and even the few people who manage to win without a team of the right names to a man spend their career mostly losing.

fans are just so convinced they know the game they ignore all evidence of what they say should win, mostly losing. It’s easy to say the style Russell Westbrook plays with doesn’t win and to assume the style John Stockton plate with would. But the fact is John Stockton was given an MVP caliber partner for about 15 years backed up with defensive players of the year and All-Stars taking a small roles to win and 20 points per game six men and great defenses or high power offenses and great coaching and did literally nothing Russell Westbrook didn’t. Lose in the first round with 55 win teams…61…fail all the time. Don’t hear a peep.

and every single one of these players be at Iverson or Westbrook or Carmelo or guys like Dominique before them have the same supposed purist talking about how they played, doesn’t win games while ignoring that plenty of time, they win more than people who play the “right way” do even one surrounded by talent.

Those players just aren’t polarizing so they escape all the criticism. There’s like 80-100 people in the hall who never get mentioned who never won shit. MVPs with high shooting percentages taking three All-Star teammates and losing in the first round. Don’t hear a word. But let Westbrook take a team that should’ve won 35 games and win 50 and lose in the first round with a poor shooting line you would think he was trying to invent a time machine travel back and kill Doctor Naismith with the damage people act like he’s doing the game.

Chris Mullin can lose with two other Hall of Famer’s in the first round. But we don’t talk about is his style was just not prone to winning. There are so many teams of people who play nothing like Allen Iverson who are loaded with talent and don’t accomplish as much in the playoffs is he did without these questions.

It’s not even playing the result. It’s extremely selective playing the result. People I would personally put three tiers ahead of Allen Iverson take better squads and win less and do so with less criticism.

you can put Steve Nash, Amare, Shawn Marion, and Joe Johnson on the same team and lose. You could put Moses Malone, Dr. J Charles Barkley Mo cheeks and Bobby Jones on one team and loose. Never hear about it. But Allen Iverson wins like 50 games with a lineup that should win 14 and wins a playoff series and nobody gives a ****.

entire topics on what his team didn’t do 15 or 20 years later, while in the same league two MVP, first ballot Hall of Famer’s are on the same team with two additional All-Stars and accomplished precisely dick.

when it gets right down to it, there are no results showing his supposedly cancerous style hurts teams any more than any other style. You just have to ignore the hundreds of times better teams with people Nothing like him fell apart. And people are entirely willing to do that. He switch his teams and the team he left wins like three more games with an different all star guard and gets eliminated later in the playoffs by the same team that eliminated him and there are topics about it. 15 years later. Steve Nash leaves a team that added a 6th man , and it immediately began the most successful run in franchise history with that much less talented core even making the finals

Like I said, it’s all really really selective because the narrative has to be framed to fit what we feeeeeel. Not what is.

Allen Iverson’s flashy shot jacking style is easy to criticize but the actual results are right in line with or above the results. Highly acclaimed players get with the kinds of teams he had. And that goes for the NBA or international. This is just another example of it. Allen Iverson’s cancerous style ruins the team then you replace him with two super efficient top 15 or so all time players in their primes one of them coming off winning the NBA title in dominating fashion, and finish the exact same place… both of them better than they finished with the squad full of all star before Allen Iverson was there.

The criticisms just make a lot more sense in theory then when you look at the actual results. There’s no more real world evidence Allen Iverson hurts teams than there is for 50 Hall of Famerswho don’t get that criticism. Guys like him are just easy to pick on in a time ”inefficiency”is the buzz word and groupthink has people afraid to stand away from the crowd.

Shitting on people like Allen Iverson is the easiest thing to do on a board full of people who have their opinions assigned to them by basketball reference. You think it through and start looking at the actual career accomplishments of a lot of people you don’t have shit to say about because their numbers don’t draw negative attention?

You’ll quickly realize how unfairly the criticism get spooned out over a certain type of player who traditionally doesn’t really do any worse than most people who get a pass.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your general premise. On some quantum physics shit. There's so many variables that go into an eventual outcome whether it be positive or negative. (from our perspective) Shit could go sideways a million different ways. For better or for worse. Could have Caleb Martin shooting you into the Finals or a Star missing everything. Life really is just a dice roll.

[QUOTE=tpols;14830481]I agree with your general premise. On some quantum physics shit. There's so many variables that go into an eventual outcome whether it be positive or negative. (from our perspective) Shit could go sideways a million different ways. For better or for worse. Could have Caleb Martin shooting you into the Finals or a Star missing everything. Life really is just a dice roll.[/QUOTE]


Finish opening that third eye and meet me on the astral plane

[IMG]https://s.imgfi.com/images/IMG_6233.gif[/IMG]




We have John wooden coming to talk about why big picture wise he wanted his team to commit more turnovers.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830486]Finish opening that third eye and meet me on the astral plane

[IMG]https://s.imgfi.com/images/IMG_6233.gif[/IMG]




We have John wooden coming to talk about why big picture wise he wanted his team to commit more turnovers.[/QUOTE]


:roll:

It's absurd how we all always want to be right.

I'm sick of it.

I’ve noticed the older I get the less I’m concerned about being right, but the more I’m concerned about people who think I’m wrong understanding why I think it. If someone understands how I got to the conclusion, I don’t care that much if they reach a different one. I’m less sure than I ever have been about almost all my basketball opinions. Everything seems to come down to “Well…maybe. I can’t say.” if I try to make a top 10 list right now both Dr. J and Steph might be in it but by Monday they will be 18 and 22. I’m becoming less and less confident in previous takes and just interested in understanding why people think the takes they have are correct.