This discussion
http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2010/1...s=iref:nbahpt1
about whether FC Barcelona could be a team of consequence in the NBA. and of which Kobe says yes. Really highlights America's traditional thinking of what makes a quality basketball player.
The US system of traditionally rating and assessing players (draft, college experience, combine etc) is not the be all and end all of what makes a quality player or find. Last I heard basketball is still a 5 man team game decided on the court. What people forget is that some of these players who have been undrafted or didn’t standout in US college, but eventually made a career in Europe , have heaps of big game experience.
Between a player like Gist or Gee who have great athletic potential and players like Penny or Neal who are limited athletically , but have heaps of big game experience and are fundamentally superior.
I would always go for the latter ( actual big game experience internationally) especially if the purpose is to of provide quality back-up minutes. People assume that good fundamental team basketball, and basketball IQ can easily be picked up by getting an individually talented player to learn the system. (note: there not going to learn it playing limited or no minutes in the NBA) Now remember these other guys who have played in europe, have lived and breathed big game team oriented basketball , that is a skill that seperates them from a player inexpereinced to quality level leagues
Neal will shock a lot of the doubters.
He will "catch on" to things quickly for some reason (Euro experience).
He'll be a "team guy" for some reason (Euro experience).
He'll be a guy you can count on under pressure for some reason (Euro experience).
He'll play D better than we think based on his athletic limitations (Euro experience).
I won't even try to discuss how much free agency and the salary cap affect NBA teams, and how difficult it is to keep a team together long enough to get comfortable. Suffice it to say that teamwork is not exclusively indigenous to Europe. If you look at the teams that have made it deep into the playoffs, you might discover a little team play here, too.
As for Barcelona being "a team of consequence" in the NBA? It's one of those things that people can argue about forever, because it's never going to happen. But if you look back a couple of seasons, I think you could make a good case that they wouldn't be a team of consequence in the Southwest Division.
There are some very good players in Europe. Overall, the teams aren't as deep, and I know for a fact that a lot of individual players would have a hard time adjusting to a bruising 82-game season. That's one of the reasons that guys with freakish athleticism are valuable - they aren't worn out after getting the beaten out of them for 82 games.
What a lot of people (here and in Europe) won't admit is that they are essentially comparing two different sports. And it is just damned difficult to guess which players will be able to cross over successfully.
I place JUST AS MUCH importance in athletic ability. Lets say a player does all the right things on offense and is fundamentally sound.. If on defense he thinks "cut off the baseline"- but doesn't have the speed to do so, he is worthless on defense. Defense wins championships and it takes some athletes to play defense. Look at bruce- he had both athleticism and fundamentals, without his athleticism- his career would have lasted 2 seconds. You can think " beat the guy to the loose ball", but if you don't have the speed to get there before he does, it doesn't matter what you think. How many "big games" are won because someone got to a loose ball? Some one who is athletic- Not necessarily someone with big game experience. I'm just saying that I wouldn't weigh one over the other when evaluating talent for an NBA team.
I'm not suggesting that athleticim , length etc are not as or if not more important. I do believe however that the American pubilic overemphasises it when evaluating talent at the expense of good sound fundamentals. How often have we rated guys highly solely on the basis of "potential" . I'm not even talking about the top tier stars here , but even for guys just trying to make the team. Blogs would go crazy screaming play Ian Mahimmi ! ( based on pure athleticm and highlights) while probobly would have Pop's neck for sigining up Bonner. (BTW I'm no Bonner fan) l but guess what although limited Bonner actually can play, While Ian simply cannot. And this is not about oh.. someday Ian's going to figure it out. Dude this is still team basketball, and not the decathlon , where understanding of spacing, awareness etc is part of the skill sets required to be good
Phill Jackson's comments:
"The physicality of our game, the size of our players, those are things that night in and night out are very difficult to contest.” is very typical of the overemphasis of athleticim at the expense of team fundamentals.
While although I'm no Kobe fan. he does have a point :
""I don’t know why he (Phil) says these things sometimes,” Bryant said. “”I think they execute extremely well, they know each other extremely well, they move the ball extremely well and that’s what you’re looking for. In the NBA, teams that do that are few and far in between, teams that play together as a unit.
Now contrary to what people think, players don't just learn that when they come into a team and learn the team's system, it's either you have those skill sets or you don't . And I will tell you now: Gist and Gee actually don't have it. Can they learn it ?, yeah .. but only after playing in in structured teams for awhile in significant level compe ion. Certainly not by simply playing in summer camp or the NBA pre-season,
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
