2024 Olympic BASKETBALL Thread (Pt. 2: Let the Games Begin!)

[picc]

Also I was leaning back to rooting for Team USA, and then Embiid missed a rip through shot, got the foul call, but still complained for a foul and moped away from the play, and I was right back to rooting against them. It is what it is.

Booker playing over Tatum isn't controversial because they play different positions. Of course Booker is going to play more, because he doesn't have two top 20 players ever ahead of him.

If Tatum was a SG, he would be playing. If Booker was a SF/PF, he would not be. It's that simple.

[Mk0]

Rewatching USA v Serbia and I am pretty sure (a retired?) LeBron could still start in the 2028 Olympics

The Olympics are in LA and he only needs to suit up for a few weeks in 2028 I am pretty sure he could do it.

[Doctor MJ]

How does Kerr keep getting rewarded with this coaching job? There are much much better coaches on the bench next to him.

He’s proven to be a horrible people manager and his rotations and media appearances throughout the buildup have been nothing short of awful.

Keep getting rewarded? This is his first Olympics as head coach. There is no "keep" here.

Why did he get named head coach in the first place? Aside from his NBA success, he was top assistant to Pop, who surely had a big say in who should get the gig next.

Now, you may well be thinking, "It's his first Olympics, but he was the coach for the team in the World Cup and they lost! Should've been fired then!". To which the answer is:

The FIBA World Cup does not matter to Americans.
That's why the big stars don't show up to the World Cup.
That's why Team USA generally operates making 4-year decisions at a time (3-years in this case because Covid).
That's why other nations are more likely to win the World Cup than the Olympics.
(…and that's without question part of why other nations are looking to convince themselves that the World Cup matters more than the Olympics.)

I understand this sentiment in general, especially from US NBA fans.

https://bestdiplomats.org/most-popular-sports-in-the-world/


If we look at the most popular sports in the world football (soccer) is definitely no 1.

Not many people care about olympic soccer as it never has the biggest stars, as there are various restrictions stopping them from playing.

“ In order to avoid competition with the World Cup, FIFA have restricted participation of elite players in the men's tournament in various ways: currently, squads for the men's tournament are required to be composed of players under 23 years of age, with three permitted exceptions.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_at_the_Summer_Olympics

NBA players were also not competing in Olympics until 1992 and when it comes to national team competitions USA pretty much only cares about Olympics

So I understand that not having the biggest players on the stage makes the competition less important.

For most non US people FIFA World Cup, FIBA Word Cup are world championships in their respective sports with the Olympics FIBA tournament considered a part of a larger event and they care about them the same amount as Olympics (wouldnt say more)

For most non US basketball national team fans an Olympic basketball gold medal and a FIBA Word Cup gold medal would be equaly important

And with USA always having some star holdouts and still always being the favourite a casual european fan sees no difference

I appreciate your civil tone and your willingness to acknowledge my view point.

Things I'd note:

1. The IOC stopped allowing the best association football players (>23) to play at precisely the same Games as they court the best basketball players in the world. Why did they do this? Because they couldn't compete with the FIFA World Cup but the FIBA World Championship (later rebranded "Cup") was not seen as a comparable threat. The IOC it should be note was founded by Europeans and the 1992 games was played in Europe.

So something I would maintain that I really folks just need to get right with:

If you think that the FIFA World Cup and FIBA World Cup are roughly equal in stature within their sports, you're just wrong. Were things otherwise, the IOC would have treated the two sports similarly in 1992.

(Of course you could argue that the IOC was just plain confused when they did this, but what I'm getting from folks here in general is a lack of awareness of the context of those 1992 decisions, so I don't really think folks here are qualified to argue they know better what the IOC should have done 30+ years ago.)

(And to the notion possible rebuttal that 1992 is no longer relevant to how the two tourneys are seen today, I'll acknowledge that things can change, but literally anyone bringing up the U23 aspect of association football in the Olympics is elevating the significance of those 1992 decisions to the current discussion, even though they probably don't realize it.)

2. I would suggest that you don't actually know how big of a deal it would be to win the Olympic Gold Medal in basketball compared to winning the FIBA World Cup, because if you're a 21st century fan and you're not American, you've never experienced this (winning both tourneys). I would suggest that the next time a non-USA Gold Medalist occurs, the star of the team will probably be a considerably bigger deal than Dennis Schroeder is now.

Just consider what it would mean to beat this Team USA with LeBron/KD/Curry and all of the top American talent. You don't think that would be bigger bragging rights than beating Team USA's with less star power?

3. Casual European fan sees no difference between Olympics basketball Gold and FIBA World Cup chip. So, I can't claim to know better than anyone else about this, but I would say this:

The Olympics in general are a much, much, much bigger deal than the FIBA World Cup.

This doesn't necessarily mean that winning the Olympic gold medal in basketball is worth more than winning the World Cup of course, because basketball is just one event in the Olympics, but when we're talking about casual fans in general, they're far more aware that the Olympics are happening than the FIBA World Cup is happening. If there is any nation on earth where this isn't true, I'd be quite surprised.

And since basically everybody knows that basketball is a part of the Olympics, that means implicitly people are more aware that Olympic basketball is happening when it is happening than they are aware of the FIBA World Cup when its happening.

Is it possible that while more people are aware of Olympic basketball than World Cup basketball, the passion of that minority that pays attention to the World Cup of basketball that it in some way surpasses Olympic basketball? Yes, it's theoretically possible.

But,

a - I'd be really curious to seem some objective data that supports this.
b - I think almost by definition this would be based on non-casual fan support, since as casual fans of sport will always be more familiar with the Olympics.

[SelfishPlayer]

What does Durant have to do with how Jokic played?

Jokic was a starter and his on/off was zero. Durant was a reserve and the game's leading scorer with a +20 on/off.

Still what does that have to do with how Jokic played?

Jokic didn't play like the best player in the world.

[Doctor MJ]

Booker playing over Tatum isn't controversial because they play different positions. Of course Booker is going to play more, because he doesn't have two top 20 players ever ahead of him.

If Tatum was a SG, he would be playing. If Booker was a SF/PF, he would not be. It's that simple.

This would make sense if Team USA were playing a classic 2-guard, 2-forward, 1-center lineup at all times, but 3 of the 5 big minute guys on Team USA today were guards (Curry, Holiday, Booker).

I do think that if KD is healthy he'll get moved to the starting lineup in place of one of the guards and we will have a 2-2-1 lineup, but that doesn't explain why Team USA is preferring to play 3 guards rather than have Tatum out there.

Of course as I say all of this, it's entirely possible that Tatum could start the next game. Not saying he's nailed to the bench, or that he deserves to be, only that position-wise, it's actually more noteworthy that Tatum didn't get run today, because simple logic would suggest he should have started over one of the guards.

[Mr Puddles]

He played great today.

Against this stacked US team

Read on Twitter

lol, minus-26 in 9 minutes is almost impossible to do. God damn.

Scoring 26 points as a team in 9 minutes of FIBA basketball is pretty good, OUTscoring the other team by 26 points is ridiculous

[hugepatsfan]

Also I was leaning back to rooting for Team USA, and then Embiid missed a rip through shot, got the foul call, but still complained for a foul and moped away from the play, and I was right back to rooting against them. It is what it is.

Booker playing over Tatum isn't controversial because they play different positions. Of course Booker is going to play more, because he doesn't have two top 20 players ever ahead of him.

If Tatum was a SG, he would be playing. If Booker was a SF/PF, he would not be. It's that simple.

Booker is starting at SF with Curry/Holiday in the backcourt.

I don't think it's positions. I think Tatum's more of an on ball player. He's a good team player and two-way guy, but he's still primarily an on ball player. He's not really the type of guy to come off screens or make a ton of cuts to the basket.

IMO it shouldn't be Tatum/Booker, it should be Tatum/Embiid. Instead of AD/Bam on the second unit bump AD up to starting C and play Tatum as the PF next to Bam on the 2nd unit. Embiid's game doesn't seem to be fitting well at all.

[picc]

This would make sense if Team USA were playing a classic 2-guard, 2-forward, 1-center lineup at all times, but 3 of the 5 big minute guys on Team USA today were guards (Curry, Holiday, Booker).

I do think that if KD is healthy he'll get moved to the starting lineup in place of one of the guards and we will have a 2-2-1 lineup, but that doesn't explain why Team USA is preferring to play 3 guards rather than have Tatum out there.

Of course as I say all of this, it's entirely possible that Tatum could start the next game. Not saying he's nailed to the bench, or that he deserves to be, only that position-wise, it's actually more noteworthy that Tatum didn't get run today, because simple logic would suggest he should have started over one of the guards.

Not necessarily, precisely because Kerr is so guard-friendly. He frequently plays three guard lineups with GS, historically, and is one of the early innovators of the small-ball era. As a coach, historically, he's much more likely to play small than to play big.

Which is again why Tatum not playing over Booker specifically isn't controversial. On another team, under another coach, maybe. But not here. Booker is also a more natural spot shooter and has less compulsion to hold the ball and dribble around. I feel it makes perfect sense why he's getting more PT despite not being a better player.

And Tatum's true size prevents him from even masquerading as a backcourt replacement. The guy is like 6'10. Its simply a more natural depth chart placement to put him with the KD/Bron/Bam group, none of which he offers similar value to in the same role.

[SelfishPlayer]

Embiid will keep starting because he prevents the possibility of Jokic having a high scoring game and Embiid is an offensive system when he gets going. AD and Bam aren't offensive systems that teammates can play through, they are simply finishers in FIBA. AD and Bam can always continue to bring hustle to the game, wether they are starting or coming off the bench.

[FeatheryTouch]

A lot of the people in here complaining about Tatum and the way minutes have been allocated seem to be missing out on the fact that Kerr and USA basketball have been tasked with building an actual team and winning a gold medal...and not on distributing minutes as if they were in a non-competitive all-star game.

Tatum is a great player no doubt. However the team as constructed has plenty of scoring and heliocentric offensive options, but a limited amount of roleplayer types that are essential for having a TEAM function at it's highest levels. There is only one ball, so Kerr needs minutes from guys like White, Holiday, and Adebayo that can do roleplayer stuff(defense, rebounds, picks, hustle plays, passing, off-ball play) more than he needs another scorer like Tatum that fuctions best with the ball in his hands. The team already has plenty of those, and several off them can also fuction better in off-ball roles than Tatum.

Is Tatum a better overall player than White, Holiday, and Adebayo? Yes, but the primary values he brings to the team aren't needed as much in this kind of environment - Kerr needs more roleplayer and off-ball minutes for the team to function efficiently, not more superstar-with the-ball-in-his-hands minutes.

It's a team that is trying to play like an actual team with guys slotting into specific roles, and not just a collection of allstars that deserve x number of minutes based only on star power.

[Sedale Threatt]

Embiid will keep starting because he prevents the possibility of Jokic having a high scoring game and Embiid is an offensive system when he gets going. AD and Bam aren't offensive systems that teammates can play through, they are simply finishers in FIBA. AD and Bam can always continue to bring hustle to the game, wether they are starting or coming off the bench.

With the Sixers, sure. But he’s never, ever going to have that role on Team USA. Slowing it down in order to dump it inside so he can go 1-on-1 is a complete waste of our overall talent. Case in point: He barely did anything today and we still scored 110.

[DarkAzcura]

It's the furthest thing from a controversial take. Of the last 6 different championship teams. Tatum had by far the worst performance of a best player during that title run. At the time they won guys like Kawhi, LeBron, Giannis, Curry, Jokic were tier 1 players and I think even Celtics fans know Tatum is not on that level and hasn't sniffed that level. As for his 1st team All-NBA that has more to do with team record than Tatum being a top 5 player because the current type 5 players is in no order are Jokic, Luka, Embiid, SGA, Giannis in the NBA.

It is definitely a controversial take.

That’s all just confirmation bias. He made all NBA first team because he is a top 5-8 player in the NBA, and his team has such a great record because he is a great player. He gets awarded as such. Tatum has become completely disrespected and underrated, clearly.

How is it controversial? No one outside Boston has him as a tier 1 superstar. Hell, the biggest Celtics homer in the world who’s pumping Tatum’s stock has gone on the record to say he’s not the same as the top 4 guys.

I get being a fan. But at least Bill defends him by saying “he’s still so young and he can still get better”. There is no objective argument for Tatum as a tier 1 basketball player.

He wouldn’t make first team all NBA 3 years in a row if he wasn’t considered a tier 1 USA basketball player outside Boston. That’s a lame and false take.

The only players people had above Tatum as another tier are Giannis, Jokic, Luka, and SGA borderline. Notice something? No US players. Tatum isn’t a tier 1 NBA player with those guys, but he’s most definitely a tier 1 USA basketball player, when literally almost anyone whose opinion means anything only has those 4 (or 5 if you include Embiid) ahead of him.

It’s revisionist history due to a poor shooting performance in the Finals to think otherwise.

[flintsky21]

What Kerr may have failed to account for is that these players have egos. And egos aren't necessarily bad as they're what gives these players confidence, especially the top tier talents. Now Tatum has the notoriety of being an active 1st-Teamer to get a DNP in an official Team USA game. I know Tatum is going to be professional about it but he must be pissed deep inside. That sh*t was disrespectful.

[Mr Puddles]

Also I was leaning back to rooting for Team USA, and then Embiid missed a rip through shot, got the foul call, but still complained for a foul and moped away from the play, and I was right back to rooting against them. It is what it is.

Booker playing over Tatum isn't controversial because they play different positions. Of course Booker is going to play more, because he doesn't have two top 20 players ever ahead of him.

If Tatum was a SG, he would be playing. If Booker was a SF/PF, he would not be. It's that simple.

Booker is starting at SF with Curry/Holiday in the backcourt.

I don't think it's positions. I think Tatum's more of an on ball player. He's a good team player and two-way guy, but he's still primarily an on ball player. He's not really the type of guy to come off screens or make a ton of cuts to the basket.

IMO it shouldn't be Tatum/Booker, it should be Tatum/Embiid. Instead of AD/Bam on the second unit bump AD up to starting C and play Tatum as the PF next to Bam on the 2nd unit. Embiid's game doesn't seem to be fitting well at all.

This is the reason. Booker plays well off ball, that's why he meshes well with CP3. There's only so many on ball players you can have in one starting line-up.

[KyRo23]

Love to see the unity of the USA…….. **** on Tatum and the Celtics what a great day

[picc]

Also I was leaning back to rooting for Team USA, and then Embiid missed a rip through shot, got the foul call, but still complained for a foul and moped away from the play, and I was right back to rooting against them. It is what it is.

Booker playing over Tatum isn't controversial because they play different positions. Of course Booker is going to play more, because he doesn't have two top 20 players ever ahead of him.

If Tatum was a SG, he would be playing. If Booker was a SF/PF, he would not be. It's that simple.

Booker is starting at SF with Curry/Holiday in the backcourt.

I don't think it's positions. I think Tatum's more of an on ball player. He's a good team player and two-way guy, but he's still primarily an on ball player. He's not really the type of guy to come off screens or make a ton of cuts to the basket.

IMO it shouldn't be Tatum/Booker, it should be Tatum/Embiid. Instead of AD/Bam on the second unit bump AD up to starting C and play Tatum as the PF next to Bam on the 2nd unit. Embiid's game doesn't seem to be fitting well at all.

It's both. He's too big to play one of the backcourt/wing spots in a Steve Kerr rotation, and he's more of a ball pounder. Both are reasons Booker is playing over him.

[SelfishPlayer]

Embiid will keep starting because he prevents the possibility of Jokic having a high scoring game and Embiid is an offensive system when he gets going. AD and Bam aren't offensive systems that teammates can play through, they are simply finishers in FIBA. AD and Bam can always continue to bring hustle to the game, wether they are starting or coming off the bench.

With the Sixers, sure. But he’s never, ever going to have that role on Team USA. Slowing it down in order to dump it inside so he can go 1-on-1 is a complete waste of our overall talent. Case in point: He barely did anything today and we still scored 110.

He doesn't need the ball inside.

[Sedale Threatt]

What Kerr may have failed to account for is that these players have egos. And egos aren't necessarily bad as they're what gives these players confidence, especially the top tier talents. Now Tatum has the notoriety of being an active 1st-Teamer to get a DNP in an official Team USA game. I know Tatum is going to be professional about it but he must be pissed deep inside. That sh*t was disrespectful.

He can suck it up. This isn’t Team Tatum. It’s Team USA and we’ve got way more important objectives than catering to anybody’s ego. I’ve never seen anything from Tatum to indicate he isn’t a model pro, so I don’t expect him to cause any issues over this. If he did, catch the next flight home.

[Sedale Threatt]

Embiid will keep starting because he prevents the possibility of Jokic having a high scoring game and Embiid is an offensive system when he gets going. AD and Bam aren't offensive systems that teammates can play through, they are simply finishers in FIBA. AD and Bam can always continue to bring hustle to the game, wether they are starting or coming off the bench.

With the Sixers, sure. But he’s never, ever going to have that role on Team USA. Slowing it down in order to dump it inside so he can go 1-on-1 is a complete waste of our overall talent. Case in point: He barely did anything today and we still scored 110.

He doesn't need the ball inside.

Inside, outside, whatever. He’s never, ever going to be the focal point with Team USA like he is with Philadelphia.

[SelfishPlayer]

With the Sixers, sure. But he’s never, ever going to have that role on Team USA. Slowing it down in order to dump it inside so he can go 1-on-1 is a complete waste of our overall talent. Case in point: He barely did anything today and we still scored 110.

He doesn't need the ball inside.

Inside, outside, whatever. He’s never, ever going to be the focal point with Team USA like he is with Philadelphia.

No one is the focal point like they are in the NBA, not even Jokic.