Learning The Rules

Chris Sheridan notes that LeBron James opened Team USA's exhibition game against Turkey with a FIBA move, swatting a ball that had hit the rim and was likely to bound into the hoop away from the basket. That's goaltending in America, but legitimate defense under FIBA rules.

That seems like an important step to me. Over the past few years, I've consistently thought that the fact that the rules have been an underplayed problem for American teams in international competitions -- it's hard when our guys are playing under unfamiliar rules that their opponents are familiar with. But it seems that this year the players and the coaching staff are putting more emphasis on getting people to think about how the FIBA ruleset should effect their behavior.

Comments

LeBron's a very, very smart player, which might be the most overlooked/underappreciated thing about him.

Hell, everything about him is underappreciated. He's the best player in the world, people! The best player since Jordan was in his prime! Wake up!

Posted by too many steves | July 31, 2008 7:35 PM

After having watched LBJ play 7 versus the Celtics - aka the best defense in the world right now - and then watched Kobe play 6 versus the Celtics, it was quite clear:

LBJ is the best basketball player in the world.

Crazy thing is, he's only like 22 and still has a ton of room for improvement. (Like, learning how not to let Paul Pierce go for 41 in Game 7).

As to FIBA rules, nice post Yglesias, finally talking some sense about basketball.

You'd think that a guy like Dwight Howard could just take every shot off the rim, funny it was LeBron who was doing it.

Hopefully guys like Mr. Guarantee D Wade remember that it's still defense that wins championships, and Gold Medals.

Posted by The Shiznits | July 31, 2008 7:41 PM

Wait, you're allowed to pull a ball out the goal if it's bouncing around on the rim? Won't our guys be able to do that, like, every time a ball bounces on the rim? There's a reason it's illegal in the NBA, and I think so...

Posted by TH | July 31, 2008 8:01 PM

"Hell, everything about him is underappreciated"

It is odd that someone at his level could be underrated, but he is.

-----

FIBA rules ball is weird. Not bad, just weird.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2008 8:24 PM

I wonder how far away we are from having all basketball played under one set of rules. I'm not familiar with FIBA much... I guess I've gleaned that it's less friendly towards the post game. Basketball is becoming pretty darn popular around the world.

Posted by socctty | July 31, 2008 8:28 PM

But will the image of black players decked out in USA shirts kicking foreigner ass on behalf of Joe-Six-Pack help Obama? I think yes!

Posted by laborlibert | July 31, 2008 8:31 PM

So I take it you want to see a return to the good old days, when a "Dream Team" with a talent gap larger than the nuclear warhead gap between the U.S. and Iran was elbowing Angolans into the first row and winning by video game margins? How stirring.

Posted by Steve S. | July 31, 2008 8:48 PM

"Wait, you're allowed to pull a ball out the goal if it's bouncing around on the rim? Won't our guys be able to do that, like, every time a ball bounces on the rim?"

Well, let's hope so. I don't think there are too many Dwight Howard types in Europe, as every 7-footer there appears to be white, not all that athletic, and focused on mastering their 15-foot jumper.

Posted by Adam | July 31, 2008 8:51 PM

"I wonder how far away we are from having all basketball played under one set of rules."

Likely still quite far, but the NBA's abolition of the zone ban in the early part of the decade was a first step towards harmonization.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2008 8:55 PM

"Well, let's hope so. I don't think there are too many Dwight Howard types in Europe"

Dwight Howard types are a lot less valuable under FIBA rules than they are under association rules.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2008 8:58 PM

Why is that, Petey? (Honest question, I never quite got why the seemingly minor FIBA/NBA differences change the game so profoundly, as they clearly do).

Posted by MQ | July 31, 2008 9:06 PM

"Why is that, Petey?"

I have only vague ideas. Seen many association rules games and few FIBA rules games. A bigger lane and different lane rules is part of it. Depreciation of the low post game for other reasons is another part.

Harder to figure out for me is why Carmelo is so much more elite in FIBA ball than he is in the association.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2008 9:16 PM

Why is that, Petey? (Honest question, I never quite got why the seemingly minor FIBA/NBA differences change the game so profoundly, as they clearly do).

Well for one thing, it's damn near impossible to do any kind of power move in the paint without getting an offensive foul called on you. Just ask Tim Duncan.

I love that team USA is using the trap more these days. Makes it harder for teams to set up zone defenses if you can get plenty of fast breaks. How many international 2-guards can bring the ball up the floor against an NBA press?

Posted by WillieStyle | July 31, 2008 9:28 PM

Yeah, they seem to insist that Carmelo is the ideal forward under FIBA rules. I don't quite understand it, but I'm looking forward to watching as many Olympic games as possible. I supposed a lot of it has to do with being a very good mid-range jump shooter. The FIBA 3 pointer is closer to a long mid-range jump shot than an NBA three. A colleg jump shot, really. And when you think about it, Carmelo's game is pretty much below the rim, relatively speaking, but he's able to create offense in a lot of ways.

Or maybe I'm completely full of shit. I don't know anything about FIBA.

Posted by Stacy | July 31, 2008 9:35 PM

now that sports illustrated has put its full archives on line, it is my self-appointed duty as an old-timer to drift down memory lane and remember relevant articles.

as, for example, within his salute to bill bradley as the best college player in the '64 preseason writeup, frank deford wrote this:

Bradley was the only U.S. player smart and flexible enough to convert his style to take advantage of the international rules, which so favor an aggressive offense.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1076689/2/index.htm

i have no idea how the '64 rules compares to now, btw, but i cite this simply to note it's an old issue. (it probably mattered less in '64, when the US dominance in basketball was higher than it is now).

Posted by howard | July 31, 2008 9:49 PM

"I wonder how far away we are from having all basketball played under one set of rules."

Huh. I was just told that FIBA is adopting the NBA rectangular lane after this Olympics is over. So maybe harmonization really is on a faster track than I was assuming.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2008 11:27 PM

Well, if I remember the scheduling correctly, Matthew is mere minutes away from formally shifting from being a dishonest political writer to being an honest propagandist.

That probably means I can't bash him anymore, since I approve of CAP's general mission just as much as I've disapproved of Matt's mission here over the past six months.

But we'll always have Primary Season '08. I'll make the T-Shirts.

And remember, the first rule of Fight Club is that if you keep saying during March and April that continuing to have big rallies is a bad idea for your candidate's brand, going on to have the biggest rally of all in Berlin in July may not be the absolutely best of ideas.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2008 11:56 PM

I was just told that FIBA is adopting the NBA rectangular lane after this Olympics is over. So maybe harmonization really is on a faster track than I was assuming.

Not until after the 2010 FIBA World Championships, apparently. They're also bringing out the 3-point line to 6.75m (a little wider than the NBA line at the corners).

You'll definitely get basketball harmonization before you get the NHL and Olympic hockey played on the same size rink. Can't be taking away seats.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 1, 2008 12:22 AM

LBJ is the best basketball player in the world.

Posted by PiriketSeverler | August 1, 2008 4:56 AM

This idea of having US basketball players play under international rules is yet another example of the recent Administration turn to so-called "pragmatist" lily-livered appeasement approaches. If I were still there on the IOC, we'd respect American primacy and there would be two sets of rules for the two teams in US vs. Anybody games. And that's the way it should be.

Sincerely,
John Bolton

Posted by Ben | August 1, 2008 5:38 AM

O/T: A U.S. Army-employed (civilian) scientist about to be charged in the 2001 anthrax attacks committed suicide.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-anthrax1-2008aug01,0,3772533.story

Posted by El Cid | August 1, 2008 6:10 AM

At least PiriketSeverler stays on topic, El Cid.

Or are you implying that Michael Redd was responsible for the anthrax attack?

-----

O/T: I find it significantly less reassuring that the anthrax attack was done by a lone psycho than if it'd been done by an organized black op.

The end of the world won't come from Osama Bin Laden. The end of the world won't come from Dick Cheney. The end of the world will come from a GS-14 who doesn't play well with others.

Posted by Petey | August 1, 2008 6:33 AM

Petey: Truly, another lesson that should have been learned is how easy attacks & the like are. And no amount of blowing up of other nations will reduce that ease.

Posted by El Cid | August 1, 2008 6:38 AM

"And no amount of blowing up of other nations will reduce that ease."

I advise you not to watch the Olympic basketball competition if that's your attitude. We're going to blow up other nations' teams real good.

-----

The (assumed) sad resolution of the anthrax attacks means that the most horrifying black op in recent years against a security service's own citizens remains that of Matthew's pal Vladimir Putin's apartment building bombings.

Posted by Petey | August 1, 2008 7:06 AM

On the plus side: although the Hatfill boondoggle set the investigation back, if correct, the Ivins charges indicate that federal investigators were both right from the beginning that the attacks came out of Fort Detrick, and this information became publicly available.

Why is this a possible plus? At least it wasn't a foreign-based attack whose source went undetected (presuming no collaboration with the new suspect), nor could such reasonably be charged, although granted that in 2002-2003, the term "reasonable" had little meaning in the absolutely insane time back then.

-----------

Hopefully you're right about the O-team, but at least the games (IIRC) are now frequently close competitions.

Posted by El Cid | August 1, 2008 7:22 AM

"At least it wasn't a foreign-based attack whose source went undetected "

I think everyone disqualified that possibility within weeks. From very early on, it was pretty obviously either a lone scientist wacko or a black op done by our own security services, ala the Russian apartment bombings.

Y'know Bush and Cheney may have run an undeniably shitty administration, but they seem to have basically upheld their oath of office. I'm grateful for small favors.

Now all we have to hope is that no one in Fort Detrick is playing with ice-nine that some lone scientist wacko can make his plaything.

Posted by Petey | August 1, 2008 7:43 AM

I think everyone disqualified that possibility within weeks. From very early on, it was pretty obviously either a lone scientist wacko or a black op done by our own security services, ala the Russian apartment bombings.

As Atrios reminds us, yes, although rational people seemed to rule out a foreign-sourced anthrax attack, remember, at that time the Cheney / Jr brigades were building the Iraq attack, so, yes, they claimed that too:

...A second test of the anthrax-laced letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle points to the presence of a troubling chemical additive, sources tell ABCNEWS.

MORE INVESTIGATIVE NEWS: • Atta Met Iraqi Official in Prague

Four well-placed and separate sources told ABCNEWS that initial tests detected bentonite, though the White House initially said the chemical was not found...

...As far as is known, only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons, but officials caution that the presence of the chemical alone does not constitute firm evidence of Iraqi involvement.

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_07_27_archive.html#6207009110017421106

Posted by El Cid | August 1, 2008 8:06 AM

I assume that the reason that NBA players don't swipe more such shots off the rim in FIBA play is not lack of knowledge of the rules, but learned reflex (bordering on instinct) accumulated over multiple years of American high school, college and NBA playing.

Also, was that it? Was that Matt's last post here?

Posted by Strega Nona | August 1, 2008 8:06 AM

"As Atrios reminds us, yes, although rational people seemed to rule out a foreign-sourced anthrax attack, remember, at that time the Cheney / Jr brigades were building the Iraq attack, so, yes, they claimed that too:"

Indeed, which is why I thought and feared it was a black op at the time...

Posted by Petey | August 1, 2008 8:12 AM

D Wade's apparent return to health & 2005 form is as important to Team USA as any newly-ingrained appreciation of FIBA rules.

Posted by mofo | August 1, 2008 11:59 AM

You are only good to the extent you help your team. Individual statistics are less meaningful. (This is why Russell was much better than Chamberlain.) LeBron helps his team, but not as much as, say, Paul Pierce helps his team. That's why the Celtics are NBA champs and when LeBron got to the NBA finals, he got his butt handed to him.

So no, LeBron isn't underrated. Like most "superstar" players, he is overrated, because the aspects of play that get one hailed as a "superstar" have limited utility in a team sport.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 1, 2008 2:47 PM

Dilan,
I'm sorry, are you saying that LeBron James doesn't help his team as much as Paul Pierce helps his? Is that a fucking joke? You obviously no nothing about basketball. He is a better passer, scorer and rebounder than Paul Pierce. Paul Pierce is a better on-ball defender. The reason Boston won this year and Cleveland lost last year is because the Celtics had a MUCH BETTER TEAM. KG was fourth in MVP voting for fuck's sake. Really, yours is the dumbest basketball post I've ever seen on MY's blog. Good luck.

Posted by Stacy | August 1, 2008 4:53 PM

no=know

Sorry, my brain is still spinning from that post.

Posted by Stacy | August 1, 2008 4:57 PM

Stacy:

Statistics don't measure how much a player helps his team. Most one-on-one scoring is extremely inefficient, because usually someone else on the team had an equal or better chance of scoring on the possession. Assists are fine, but so are screens, but nobody gets a stat for setting a screen. Rebounds are fine if they reflect playing in position or obtaining a rebound on a possession that would have otherwise gone to the other team, but total rebounds is practically meaningless.

Meanwhile, the most important part of the game, the part that wins championships, defense, is not measured accurately by conventional statistics. (Blocks and steals are only a limited portion of what a good player does on defense.)

LeBron is a statistical superstar. That's what draws a high salary in the NBA. That is not, however, what wins. The ideal situation is a team that has balanced scoring, and players who are willing to sublimate their stat counts for the team. "Superstars" are of limited usefulness unless they are willing to do that. That's why Ron Harper was a better player with the Bulls and Lakers than he was with the Clippers and Cavs, despite the fact that his numbers were much better at the latter two named teams.

Getting bowled over by statistics-- and especially offensive statistics, as very few games are actually won on offense-- is simply being distracted from what is really important.

Until LeBron starts doing more things that don't show up in stat sheets and playing more team oriented ball, he cannot be considered underrated.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 2, 2008 12:25 AM

Shorter Dilan Esper:

Rajon Rondo is a better point guard than Chris Paul because Boston won the championship and New Orleans didn't. The fact that Rondo's stats are worse than Paul's is further confirmation that Rondo is better than Paul.

Posted by Petey | August 3, 2008 10:05 AM

"Really, yours is the dumbest basketball post I've ever seen on MY's blog."

I wouldn't go that far. There was some Bulls' fan who kept insisting here that Ben Gordon was the best shooting guard in the league.

Dilan Esper's post may indeed be one of the top 10 dumbest posts, (it really is pretty dumb), but it's probably not the single dumbest one.

Posted by Petey | August 3, 2008 10:10 AM

And finally, I'll add that not only is LeBron pretty obviously the most valuable player in the association, but the gap between him and the pack is wider than has been the case with anyone since MJ in the mid-90's.

Posted by Petey | August 3, 2008 10:27 AM

Petey:

Jordan was also overrated. He never won a championship until he figured out how to play team defense (which is why Phil Jackson is underrated).

One-on-one offensive skills impress the masses, but they don´t win championships. You have to put together a team to do that, and guys like LeBron will only help if they are willing to sublimate their egos. Many aren´t.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 4, 2008 6:08 PM

Yes, but was Jordan as good as Ron Harper? By that point in his career, MJ wasn't that great on D anymore. Maybe Ron Harper was really more valuable. You know, because making shots and getting rebounds and assists actually hurt your team. That's how you can tell Paul Pierce is better than LeBron, because Pierce does less of those things.

Seriously, dude: Paul Pierce isn't even the best player on his team. Don't ever compare him to LeBron again. You're hurting me here, making me agree with Petey.

Posted by too many steves | August 4, 2008 6:26 PM

OK, I can't let this go: "very few games are actually won on offense." That makes no sense. Think about it: offense is 50% of the game, defense is 50%. A point is a point is a point, and preventing one is worth the same as scoring one.

Posted by too many steves | August 4, 2008 6:35 PM

"Yes, but was Jordan as good as Ron Harper?"

Hell, no. Harper was far more willing to "sublimate his ego" than Jordan, which is the measure of true valuableness in the NBA.

The "sublimate your ego" stat is yet further proof of why Rajon Rondo is a better point guard than Chris Paul.

Posted by Petey | August 5, 2008 2:15 PM

sadsadsadasfsdfsdfsdf

Posted by seks shop | August 11, 2008 10:40 AM