|
|
Post by Jake Seven on Jun 21, 2008 15:29:03 GMT -5
CJ, you still haven't addressed America's recent failures when playing international basketball. Again, I think you're missing MY point. I really think you are. I'm not talking about a nationalist champion. My sentiment is that the NBA is the greatest collection of international talent in the world. That's how I feel. If these players weren't the best (Like the Radmonovic's and Vujacic's, with such small contracts they'd be cut and a feasible replacement would be found. Other stars such as Nowitzki and Nash wouldn't be so easily cut or replaced, so in a way even if they were bad, which they're not, I could see the loophole in the Mavs and Suns not being able to find a better replacement in the INTL pool.) You both keep pointing out our failures in international play. Someone tell me our line up for Team USA 2000, or 2004. It was not the 12 best American players I'll tell you that for sure without even looking it up, and this year's squad doesn't have a single Celtic on the team. (All Big Three are Americans (As well as the rest of the team)). And you mention Team Argentina: Care to take a look at their roster? Emanuel 'Manu' Ginobili Luis Scola Carlos Delfino Andres Nocioni Fabricio Oberto Walter Herrmann Six of their twelve are NBA players, a handful, elite. Team Spain? Pau Gasol Jose Calderon Juan Navarro Jorge Garbajosa Rudy Fernandez Sergio Rodriguez Another six players, are on NBA teams. Gasol made it to the Finals and got man handled by Garnett. Calderon lead the Euro-Raptors, and the league, in 3 PT%. But I suppose that schmuck Kobe Bryant wasn't as good of a team mate as Calderon. Andddd, how does the Celtics being World Champions have anything to do with Team USA's failures in international play? Apples =/= oranges gentlemen. Tell me how the Celtics can be judged on the failures of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Jason Kidd, and Carmelo Anthony. They can't. (To be continued after I run my sims on WhatIfSports).. Feel free to respond while I run them. |
|
|
|
Post by Anthony Jordan on Jun 21, 2008 16:06:18 GMT -5
By your logic, almost every sports league has a claim to the "World Champions" as they employ players from many different countries. The NBA could have the best players (certainly the most marketable), but fewer and fewer of the great players are Americans (quite a few are, but it's not 100% like it used to be). Dylan was right about the economics of the sport building competition in Europe and possibly other places.
Besides, look at the soccer leagues in overseas, they're full of players from nations all over the globe, but none claim to be "World Champions" when they win their league. The real competition for the title typically is the Olympics or another international competition.
Of course, I find the whole issue to be nit-picky on both sides. The Celtics are a great team, and I'd love to see them adapt to international or European rules and play the best teams. That'd be entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Seven on Jun 21, 2008 16:26:58 GMT -5
This series will be played in 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 fashion, with ARG getting home court advantage via pre series coin flip ______________________________ Game 1: Argentina's six, vs the Celtics six (Starting five + House). Everyone on the Celtics except Rondo and House played all 48 minutes. No one on Team ARG played more than 40 a piece. Thank you Doc Rivers. ARG wins 110-97 Ginobli: 29 pts, 8 ast Scola: 15 pts, 13 rebs Oberto: 10 pts, 15 rebs KG: 25/16 Allen: 20 pts ______________________ Game 2: Argentina's six, vs the Celtics six (Starting five + Posey). This time, the Celtics switched things around so no one on either team played more than 40 minutes. The breaks and Posey's defense helped Boston win. BOS 106-92 Pierce: 27 pts, 9 rebs, 6 ast ___________________________ Game 3 Same as game 2, Posey plays, and no one plays over 40 minutes: BOS wins 108-81 Perkins: 19 pts, 15 rebs, 4 blks ________________________________________ Game 4 ARG cruises 112-93 ________________________________________ Game 5 BOS wins 113-102, after blowing a 25 first half lead. ARG tied it in the 4th 97-97, but to no avail __________________________________________ Game 6 ARG lets go of a 20 point third quarter lead, Celtics come back to tie in the 4th. They win on a buzzer beater by Manu 94-92 Paul Pierce: 24 pts, 12 rebs, 9 ast, 3 steals __________________________________________ Game 7 Celtics shut down Team Argentina, 24-7 in the first quarter. Lead 55-38 at the half And don't look back, to win the game and the series 109-93 www.whatifsports.com Run your own if you'd like. |
|
|
|
Post by Jake Seven on Jun 21, 2008 16:37:29 GMT -5
Quick little fun, one game series:
ARG (6) + SPAIN (6)
Spaingentina
vs
Boston Celtics (12)
The combined team is too much as Boston loses a close game that got blown out at the end 115-98
If it matters, Doc chose to play Brian Scalabrine down the stretch instead of Garnett (No word of an injury, he just started playing). As well as Cassell over House and Rondo.
Perhaps that can be an excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xpress Success on Jun 21, 2008 23:59:48 GMT -5
Wait, you're using an online simulation algorithm as the basis of your argument? Hahaha, now I've seen it all dude.
AJ's point was a good one, and he was also good in pointing out the situation in club football globally. Some of the bigger leagues are still able to get by with a greater percentage of home-grown talent, but more and more foreigners are coming in for the money and exposure.
Same principle as the NBA and MLB really. I'll stand by the "sensationalism" call with conviction, but you won't see it because that attitude has been drummed into you for a lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Seven on Jun 22, 2008 0:49:20 GMT -5
Wait, you're using an online simulation algorithm as the basis of your argument? Hahaha, now I've seen it all dude. I suppose the online simulation algorithm is worse than your plain, flat opinion,... again why? And your opinion was "Team USA failures at international competition proves no one in the NBA should be considered World Champions, because Team USA can't beat other countries." I mean, that's not opinion. That's fact. That the Boston Celtics represent Team USA in every way, shape, and form. Am I reading this correct Dylan? You say yes, then you're wrong. You say no, then I would like a re-wording for clarification please. Because my argument is that the Boston Celtics should be considered World Champions because they're the best team in the greatest collection of international players in the world, then, brought into play the internets best simulators for impossible games, and I'm still wrong just because you say. Well. I guess this argument is done just because you're right and I'm wrong. Again, because you say. Same principle as the NBA and MLB really. I'll stand by the "sensationalism" call with conviction, but you won't see it because that attitude has been drummed into you for a lifetime. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICA. I'm not saying AMERICAN TEAMS ARE BETTER! This has nothing to do with anything being drilled into my head. This has to do with the Boston Celtics. The 2008 NBA Champions. I'm saying the Celtics, as a whole, as a unit, as a team, is the best team in the world. Your defense is "nope". Good defense. My defense is NBA Champions. 82 wins. Beat every single team in the league at least once. Many more than once. Averaged winning home games by 20.0+. THAT'S UNHEARD OF!! Manhandled the Lakers. They played tug of war with them, and let them have some ground to let Kobe THINK he stood a chance. My defense is I used the worlds best simulator. And they still won a 7 game series. I'm just stunned that no matter what I say, it's always "That's a joke. Nope, I'm right." I mean, that's a good defense. Where are your examples? The facts? Any proof? That's why I'm so bullheaded and "don't see things" like you'd like, because you're not shooting numbers at me. Facts that prove anything other than Team USA sucks.. blah blah.. Team USA =/= 2008 Boston Celtics. Period. Nor is this argument about Team USA. It's about the Celtics. (My personal thought is, IT SHOULD equal that because they're all Americans and they should be representing their country, not, Kobe "Man Bitch" Bryant, Lebron "One Man Team" James, Camelo "Holdout" Anthony, and Jason "I Should Retire because I shoot 29%" Kidd. How does that represent our countries best? It doesn't.) |
|
|
|
Post by Xpress Success on Jun 22, 2008 1:30:25 GMT -5
And your opinion was "Team USA failures at international competition proves no one in the NBA should be considered World Champions, because Team USA can't beat other countries." AJ is the one who pointed out recent closes in the disparity between Team USA and other national teams. And as I drummed home earlier, representative ball (be it playing for your state, or your country) was immaterial to the discussion, we were talking about club sport. The notion of having a World Champion in club sport, or claiming to be one when you win a certain league's title, is nothing short of folly. It is sensationalist dribble for the hell of selling a few commemorative items to fans, and nothing more than that. Read AJ's previous post again, because it was a great read and really addressed the issue in a succinct manner. The fact is that with continued financial backing and grass-roots nurturing of European basketball, the Euroleague will be on a par with the NBA, if not better for the fact it is a more pure brand of basketball. All you've brought is "well, the best players come to the NBA" and a simulation algorithm. Problem is: simulators aren't bullet-proof. Russia beat the Netherlands at Euro 2008 this morning, very few people gave them a chance. Same with Turkey defeating Croatia the day before. Simulators can demonstrate probability, but nothing more. I don't care what kind of individual talent you have on your team (in whatever sport), a team of champions can be smote down by a champion team. |
|
|
|
Post by Jake Seven on Jun 22, 2008 2:09:59 GMT -5
I'll give you that. I will. I'm not so bullheaded to say everything you say is wrong. I'm not like that, I will give you credit for your argument against simulators in small sample size (Simulators played hundreds of thousands of times prove otherwise though, when you're running a 59/41% split, it's pretty obvious who is a better team on paper- not heart, but I don't have that kind of time to run hundreds upon thousands of games.)
That's where my agreeing ends.
I wasn't aware that the Boston Celtics were a team of champions.
I would have considered them a champion team than the former stated.
None of them had won anything (Minus House and Cassell, and Cassell is a bum who doesn't count) before this season. Meaning they are everything short of a team of champions. (Yanno, a championship) All-Star perhaps, but obviously not champions alone.
Your fact stands true though. The Spurs lost this year. They're a "team of champions". In other words a dynasty or a team put together so that they would not lose (2004 Lakers, who also lost) As did the Patriots.
But the Celtics aren't a team of champions, far from it. And they won. The Celtics played the best 'team' basketball the last 15 years of the NBA, that's the consensus I've been hearing since the first look at the team in pre-season internationals. They are unselfish and have the heart to put their ego's aside to win, and that's what they did. Put their egos aside, and won. They played for the front of their jersies, not their back. (Garnett passed up a lot of double doubles he would have easily taken in Minnesota for the better of the team. He passed up open shots, for the better shot many times in the playoffs alone. Something he was vastly criticized for when the C's lost. And triumphed for when they won. When you're selfish,..well..just look at the Lakers. That's what happens when you want the last shot, or your own shot, not the best shot)
And that's the difference between a lot of these teams in the NBA, and the Celtics, and the past 15 years of 'team-play'. That's why I would call them a champion team, not a team of champions. Teams of champions are either well established teams that expect to win, that you can't bet against no matter the odds, and teams with players that always win it seems. Champion teams are unselfish teams willing to put it all on the line to win. Your Team Russia and Team Turkey.
Whether or not this was a 82-26 fluke year, we'll see. But let the record stand that as much as the Celtics were slated to win, as soon as they were tied with the Hawks in Game 5 and Game 7 (series wise, going into the game), everyone said "Look their egos are getting in the way". As soon as they were tied with the Cavs in Game 5 and Game 7, same. Tied with the Pistons in Game 5, same. The media had nothing else to write, because if they lost any of those series it was an easy cop out. When they were tied with the Lakers after Game 4, the theme of the headlines read "Celtics always bounce back." A team of champions don't run that gimmick. They're expected to win right? ....Right? The Celtics were UNDERDOGS who didn't stand a chance to beat the Lakers in the Finals. You remember that headline right? I do.
Not too many people gave the Celtics a chance after posting a 66-16 record, and going to game 7 versus the worst team in the playoffs in the first round... let the record show that as well.
And in his defense of his theory of:
,..because I think I stated some very well points.
I offer the floor to Dylan, as I await his response. (Or AJ, or anyone else) Because I find this intriguing, to say the least.
Are they a team of champions, and not a champion team? Which are they? (Because you never stated one way or the other)
I'm still saying the Celtics are the best in the world don't get me wrong, but when they got down the media jumped on them and said "See? Told you so." And when they won, the media said "See? Told you so." Others aren't so confidant to the best in the world theory, as clearly stated in the UNDERDOG to the Lakers comment.
The team which they then demolished.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xpress Success on Jun 22, 2008 4:41:11 GMT -5
The Celtics are kinda both really. The term "team of champions" doesn't entail that all the players have won titles in whatever league they're playing in, it simply entails that they are top-class players who are likely to be named in an All-Star/representative team. Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen fit that bill, with some decent support around them. Boston had been a pretty shitty team recently, so they traded for Allen and Garnett in order to make a dash at an NBA title... lo and behold, the gamble paid off.
All power to them, but I hardly would have called them an underdog team for this season past. The fact that they won the title was a surprise, especially with how well they had played all season, but at a minimum I had pegged them as a playoff team. The club went out on a limb in a major way in trading for Allen and Garnett, and the bare minimum they would've expected in return was a playoff berth, but in all realism the moves were made to try and propel the Celtics to title contention. They played good team basketball and got the job done in some gritty affairs, but with that trio of Allen, Garnett and Pierce around you could hardly call them an underdog.
The biggest underdog team I have seen win a major sporting title in recent memory would have to be the Greeks at Euro 2004. Unlike the Celtics, they had no real big names in their outfit, and only a few players with any Champions League/UEFA Cup experience at club level. They ended up defeating the French (another major Les Bleus disappointment), the host nation Portugal (twice) and the Czech Republic also. All three nations were stacked with talented players, and had the firepower to blow the Greeks away. But they stood firm, played good team football and took chances when they presented themselves. Anyone who placed bets on a Greek triumph would have made a bag of cash from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wife Beater on Jun 22, 2008 5:42:29 GMT -5
Are you people seriously fighting over the meaning of World Championships?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Seven on Jun 22, 2008 6:12:16 GMT -5
Nope. Having a debate. There's a difference. Fights get threads locked.  |
|
|
|
Post by Wife Beater on Jun 22, 2008 6:22:30 GMT -5
Well I suppose you can debate away.
I have more pressing matters to worry about then whether or not the Celtics are "World champs" or whatever is going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xpress Success on Jun 22, 2008 6:26:12 GMT -5
Worry about them elsewhere then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wife Beater on Jun 22, 2008 6:36:59 GMT -5
Worry about them elsewhere then. No need for hostility. I came in here and read everything and understand where you are both coming from I just don't understand why it really matters who is what....can't people just enjoy sports and that's it? |
|
|
|
Post by Xpress Success on Jun 22, 2008 6:43:09 GMT -5
That post wasn't meant as hostility, it was just a sharp riposte.
|
|
