USA 70 - Brazil 68

by Steve Perrin on Aug 30, 2010 3:58 PM PDT in News

I was going to say something about dodging a bullet in this game, but of course it's only group play, so it hardly matters whether the US had won or not. If the only acceptable outcome is the Gold medal, then it doesn't much matter whether you finish first in your group or fourth - you still have to beat good teams in the knockout round. If, as I heard Tony Kornheiser say on PTI today, this team is bound to lose at least one game at some point, then today's win is almost bad news. There's no way they lose to Iran or Tunisia, so that means if one loss is inevitable, it's waiting for them in single elimination, and they won't win the Gold. I don't happen to believe that a loss is inevitable, but from this point forward the only option is to go undefeated.

Today's game exposed the limitations of this Team USA. The youth was evident in the 22 turnovers (that's a boatload in a 40 minute game). The lack of cohesion was evident on pick and roll defense (Dragic and Slovenia found some seams Sunday, but Marcelinho picked them apart in the first half of this one). The lack of a halfcourt offense was evident in the low point total (only 27 in the second half). We've said it all along - against an opponent that handles the pressure defense and doesn't turn the ball over, when the US is unable to get easy baskets in transition, they're going to struggle. Well, guess what? They struggled.

And for all the talk of the depth of Team USA, when it got right down to it in a tight game, Krzyzewski played Kevin Durant basically the entire game, and went with Billups the entire second half. Is it perhaps a bit strange that coach K felt compelled to ride his starters so much in an opening round game? Perhaps. But it's pretty evident that when forced to play a half court game, it's coming down to Durant or Rose or Billups creating something in an iso. That's it. That's the offense. In addition to the starters playing significantly more minutes, the bench was ineffective when it was in. Collectively the reserves made only a single field goal (a Kevin Love three of all things) and scored 6 points.

(Speaking of playing time, there may be a tendency in Clips Nation to feel badly about Eric Gordon's 5 minutes today. Don't. I have no problem with him playing behind Westbrook right now, especially in a game where Brazil was playing man-to-man the whole way. As of now, I assume Gordon would be the first guard off the bench against zones, but Westbrook has looked great as well so he deserves minutes. There was a time when Gordon wasn't considered a possiblity for the team, and then he was penciled in as maybe a 12th man. He's in the top 9, even today, and he'll get his chances, so it's OK.)

Does today's result mean that Team USA is in trouble, when Brazil had free throws to tie the game in the final seconds, even though they were playing without Nene or Anderson Varejao? I don't really think it told us much that we didn't already know. It was an unusual game and I wouldn't want to use it to forecast the future. Brazil's halftime lead was mostly the byproduct of ridiculously hot shooting, including 7 for 11 on three pointers (many of them contested). Ironically, some equally cold second half shooting ended up costing the South Americans the game. If they make even a reasonable percentage in the second half, they win handily.

You have to give Team USA credit for making some defensive adjustments at halftime. They went with the hard show on the pick and roll after intermission, which frequently turned into a trap on the ball handler. The rotations from the other three players weren't always perfect, but the approach clearly worked better than having the big float under the screen as they were doing in the first half. If these games are on the job training for Team USA, today was very important. Neither Iran nor Tunisia have the talent to provide meaningful work to the team. That means that any more learning experiences are coming when a loss means a trip home. Against Germany or a similar team in the first game of the knockout stage, they can survive a bad game. From the final 8 on, there's no more learning on the job - they have to do the job at that point.

Tweet Comment 35 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Lots of minutes for the starters...

they get a day rest before the next one, right?

by banandy on Aug 30, 2010 4:09 PM PDT reply actions

Yeah that was what I was thinking

I don’t think Coach K would have played the starters so much if the team didn’t have a day off tomorrow.

"It's better to be an optimist who is sometimes wrong than a pessimist who is always right"unknown

by bestclipfan on Aug 30, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions

The next games

will probably be easy enough to allow the starters to rest as well. So they could better afford to play the starters big minutes in this one.

I don’t care how they won, as long as they did. It’s weird to me that people say things like “if Brazil had Nene and Varejao they would have won.” So? This version of Team USA isn’t exactly the NBA’s heavy hitters either. I’m guessing Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Howard, Kobe, CP3 and co. would have beat Brazil at full strength too…so who cares?

by madglove on Aug 30, 2010 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the point is...

That Team USA, even this version without LeBron, Wade, etc, should be able to handily beat Brazil, with only two NBA players actually in action. Of course, every team has bad days. Team USA would beat that Brazil team 9 out of 10 I would think, so like you said, we can just be glad they got the win in this one.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Aug 30, 2010 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Is that really true though?

I mean we can’t have it both ways. People constantly talk about how the rest of the world has caught up, and now the talent disparity isn’t nearly as great. That, combined with the fact that these international teams have had much more time together and thus play as more of a unit, and I feel like it’s no shame to have some close games. We can’t harp on that and then be disappointed when the team actually has close games.

This USA team isn’t a juggernaut by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, some people don’t even have USA as the favorites.

I mean if the Lakers played the Minnesota TWolves 10 times last year, I would think the Lakers would beat them 9-10 times too (and in fact they are 9-0 in the last three seasons). So should the Lakers hang their heads if they beat the TWolves by 2 points next season? I don’t think anyone would think that.

Brazil does have NBA talent, and guys who can clearly play. And on the flip side, is it news that Team USA has real flaws? I thought we were past the stage where it’s a colossal failure if Team USA loses a game.

Eh. We won. Whatever.

by madglove on Aug 30, 2010 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree with you

The world has caught up to the point that the days of the US winning by merely showing up are over. I think everyone gets that in general. Let’s face it – Spain lost to a depleted France team, Argentina barely beat Germany who then got spanked by Australia. The US is still undefeated, against three quality opponents, and the simple fact is that some competitive basketball is being played in Turkey by multiple teams, despite some big names being missing.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Aug 30, 2010 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Definitely

A lot of international guys making a case for themselves, in a similar way that Rudy Fernandez did last year. I’m really looking forward to seeing Tiago Splitter play with Tim Duncan. He’s a handful on the offensive glass and plays extremely tough around the rim.

by Erik O on Aug 30, 2010 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree.

Timmy has long needed some help in the post. Now, he finally has it. It will probably take him some time to adjust, but it makes things a little easier for Duncan. He’s had to play with stretch 4’s, undersized 4’s and role player 5’s for awhile.

by Lawler 4ever on Aug 31, 2010 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions

btw I'm not criticizing your analysis

Just commenting on the perspective of some reports and comments generally today. I don’t think it’s that big a deal that they win a close one. And like you said, Spain already lost and certain teams are just playing well.

I would be really disappointed if USA didn’t win the World Championships, but I don’t think it would be a huge disappointment on the level of the Larry Brown squad.

I also question how much these the world cares about these World Championships like everyone claims. I’ve read the line about how everyone else cares more about this tournament than the Olympics…yet you saw very few players internationally just sitting out last summer. This summer guys like Pau aren’t playing and they’re not injured.

I wonder if the rest of the world USED to care more about the World Championships, but since teams started being more competitive with Team USA, and Team USA cares about the Olympics, the focus has shifted. After all, everyone wants to beat Team USA. They’ve already done so in the World Championships. I’m guessing they’re focusing on the Olympics now.

by madglove on Aug 30, 2010 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Great point about the Worlds

I’ve actually been mulling a post on that very subject. It’s become axiomatic to say “the rest of the world cares more about the WC than they do about the Olympics” but I’ve never seen anyone offer any evidence supporting that assertion – like attendance or TV ratings or something. Meanwhile, Dirk, Pau, Tony Parker, etc…. are healthy but sitting out this event. Would they sit out the Olympics? So I feel like this idea is a bit of a misnomer. Now, it is certainly true that the US has traditionally not cared about the Worlds at all – we sent an Athletes in Action team in the 70s, if I recall correctly. So the relative importance in the rest of the world is worth noting. But I’d like to see some data on the whole “more important than the Olympics” thing.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Aug 30, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Historically, the Olympics is the largest international competition.

We’ve dominated basketball in the Olympics (13 Gold Medals since 1936). FIBA World’s, not so much (3 Gold Medals since 1950). The world largely goes by the acknowledgment that the FIBA World Championships is to basketball what FIFA World Cup is to Soccer/“Football” Not exactly to the magnitude of the World Cup, but you know what I mean. The idea is that there is more competition at the World Championships and that teams traditionally send their best players. Steve, you’ve already mentioned that every star player didn’t participate this year. With more competition and better international players, it is thought to be the tougher tournament to win. Therefore it is more prestigious.

I think that Americans love the idea of representing their country at the Olympics. There are so many different events, competitions and athletes from many different sports and backgrounds coming together for their country. You have people watching and supporting events that they would never watch for any other reason than it being the Olympics. I loved seeing the guys come out and support Michael Phelps, Misty May Treanor and Kerri Walsh. Even seeing Yao Ming carry his homeland’s flag at the opening ceremony in Beijing was powerful. There is a sense of pride, unity and respect that is shared from top to bottom amongst the Olympians.

The World Championships is just basketball to us Americans. We’re playing for our country, but it’s just basketball. The whole world is not watching, just the hardcore fanatics and the b-ball junkies. I could be wrong, but that’s how I interpret it. I’ve always loved watching the Olympics. I have watched the World Championships as well for as long as I can remember, but I never really placed it above the World Championships.

The best way for us Americans to appease everybody is to commit to both tournaments and dominate them both.

by Lawler 4ever on Aug 31, 2010 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions

Guess who is on the Iran roster, or should I say Ay-ran!? Do you think Ralph will be tuning in for that game?

Roger Sterling: To my knees, Don. They're bringing to my knees!"

by Lawler's Law on Aug 30, 2010 4:37 PM PDT reply actions

I'm Persian. Steve will you ban Lawler's Law for one game?

I kid.

"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.

by Gordon for President on Aug 30, 2010 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions

I find the Kornheiser logic, "they're gonna lose one..."convoluted and... baffling...

Just strange that anyone would say, “They’re gonna lose one, and this should have been the one.” Statistically, if both teams are absolutely equal, you’d have a fifty percent chance of coming out on top no matter how many times you played. Doesn’t matter how many games you play. If the Clips are better than another team they are likely to win that game. Doesn’t matter how many games you play. As the coaches say, you gotta play them one game at a time. If you play better, you win.

by John Raffo on Aug 30, 2010 5:00 PM PDT reply actions

Subtract one of those "no matter how many times you play..."

talk about convoluted. Need edit button.

by John Raffo on Aug 30, 2010 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions

The substitutions didn't make sense to me... Neither did the media's adulation of Billups' performance

Billups and Westbrook did as much to almost lose the game as they did to win. Sure, “Mr. Big Shot” somehow got 15 points, but he did it in a frustratingly inefficient manner. 1-6 from deep, and it seemed like every one of those was well-contested. I didn’t realize that “veteran leadership” gave him a green light to jack up terrible shots early in the clock. His 3 assists on the game was not enough, and his glory hounding pull-up in the final seconds of the game could have cost Team USA the game had Brazil made a basket in the time Billups should have been dribbling out the clock. Billups’ performance was just indicative of Team USA’s iso-heavy, chucking-heavy offense. Just as Steve said, they weren’t able to execute any semblance of a halfcourt offense. But what’s mind-boggling to me is that sportswriters have been praising Billups as the second savior of the game (behind Durant). Did they even watch this game, or did they just see the 15 points on the scoresheet and draw conclusions?

Though he played well in the previous games, today Westbrook was terrible. He put up a donut from the field and caused more turnovers than the box score would suggest with his sloppy passing… when he wasn’t dribbling into traffic, completely out of control.

And yet, Coach K stubbornly insisted on sticking with these guys instead of giving EJ, Curry, and Granger any burn off the bench. I realize that EJ and Curry’s roles are as “zone busters” and Brazil was playing man, but when nothing’s happening on offense and you have Billups bricking one three after another, you might as well get your best shooters in there and try to find a spark. At the very least, EJ could have done some off-ball movement to force the D to react, instead of trying to force up shots in isolation.

So while I can reason Steve’s assessment that it’s okay for EJ to be behind Westbrook in today’s depth chart, I think that Westbrook quickly proved himself ineffective and should have gone straight to the bench, along with Billups. When you have this level of depth on the roster, you don’t need to keep those guys in the game.

by Raining Buckets on Aug 30, 2010 5:28 PM PDT reply actions

This is what we get for calling him "Mr. Big Shot".

“…did they just see the 15 points on the scoresheet and draw conclusions?”
That’s a very good question.

“When you have this level of depth on the roster, you don’t need to keep those guys in the game.”
I don’t understand how a team with 12 near-all-stars can ever get cold. If your starters are all off their game for the night, you still have 7 guys that start for their respective teams. There’s no shame in playing your bench in these situations, but Coach K seems to be stubborn in that way.

by Erik O on Aug 30, 2010 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree. Up four with something like 2 minutes left, Chauncy runs the ball up the court and jacks a Baron Davis 23-seconds-left-on-the-shot-clock-3 with no one around the rim.

Thought that was very un-Billups.

"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.

by Gordon for President on Aug 30, 2010 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Hmmm...

Un-Billups? I’ve seen him do it 100 times. He just makes a lot of them.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Aug 30, 2010 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions

I was yelling at my TV when he bricked yet another bad shot

Especially that early in the clock, in that situation. Reprehensible.

by Raining Buckets on Aug 31, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions

It's a classic dilemma

The media has christened this the B-team, and annointed KD and Billups as the only hope. The NBA is a superstar driven league, and there are only four guys on the team who have ever made an all star team – Granger being one of them. In a close game, even with Billups not playing great, if Coach K loses with Billups on the floor, he gets a pass from the US media for at least staying with his stars. If he loses with Eric Gordon on the floor, he gets crucified in the press. that’s the reality. Heck, he was criticized for not playing KD enough on Sunday in a game they won by 20+.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Aug 30, 2010 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions

yea always a touch choice for the coach

if your starters are struggling do you sub them out? if your bench is playing great, do you put your starters back in?

I know billups is the “elder statesmen” of this team, but overall his play hasn’t really impressed me. Even the “big shot” he made at the end of the game I didn’t feel was a particularly smart play. I think when you have these US teams, kinda like an all-star team, the lines between the starters and the bench should be more blurred. Odom looked gassed at the end of the game, and if he’s not running the floor, having him playing center isn’t really taking advantage of his strengths. I think Durant and Rose have been made out to be the stars of the team, and have been pretty much the most consistent so it would be VERY hard to leave them out at the end of games. Besides them, I wouldn’t have a problem with subbing anyone else out if they aren’t performing.

by osamu on Aug 31, 2010 6:02 AM PDT up reply actions

Odom was not only gassed, but also incapable of making a layup

That guy refused to dunk except one time, and yet he blew almost every layup. Some of those were just plain bad shots, but some of them were just him going glass instead of finishing strong. We’ve all heard about how “special” he is, but I didn’t see anything from him yesterday that Kevin Love couldn’t do. I mean, Love got a dub-dub in 11 minutes against Slovenia… what’s the guy supposed to do to get more PT? Lamar did grab 9 boards, but he was not really engaged on either end of the floor: blowing layups on offense and getting torched by Tiago Splitter on D.

by Raining Buckets on Aug 31, 2010 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions

I thought the whole team looked gassed.

Makes no sense with that much quality on the bench. Why not throw Curry, Gordon, and Love in there… especially Love. The guy’s been massive.

by John Raffo on Aug 31, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions

It was an unusual game

Which is exactly the type of game a team constructed like this might lose.

Even with the C or D team, the USMNT should still be able to put together a team that can overcome even an unusual game when the other top countries are running out what amounts to their B or C team.

A loss isn’t inevitable, but when you run out a team that isn’t the most efficient and can be dubious on the glass, you up the variance. Higher variance plays to the advantage of the weaker teams.

"To claim that you can simply watch a player and see his or her overall contribution to wins suggests that you believe your mind can do something that research suggests is difficult. Despite the limitations of personal observation, though, human beings still tend to believe the analysis based on this approach is correct. Such overconfidence can often cause people to ignore contradictory information." - Berri and Schmidt, Stumbling On Wins

"Hubris; H-U-B-R-I-S; Hubris" - Sean Salisbury.

by John R on Aug 30, 2010 5:52 PM PDT reply actions

Ah crap, I got problems...

I read that as “US Mutant Ninja Turtles.”

(We should have really played Kevin Love more. He’s the embodiment of efficiency and work on the boards.)

by Erik O on Aug 30, 2010 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions

I totally agree

USA Baskeball’s high risk-high reward approach in the Colangelo era – pressure defense, fast break offense, lots of threes, no post presence – has baffled me. Maybe not this team so much, as they may not have had a choice since so many players opted not to play. But in 2006 they ignored their post players and played Carmelo at the four. The smothering perimeter defense let them win a bunch of games by 40 – but when they came up against a team that handled the pressure, they had not half court offense and lost to Greece. A differently constructed team might have a lower average margin of victory – and zero losses. And in a single elimination tournament, of course that’s what you want.

The high pace, high pressure, run and gun approach is what you do when you don’t have the best talent. It’s Loyola Marymount against Michigan in the NCAA tournament. I’m pretty sure I wrote this exact post in 2006 some time.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Aug 30, 2010 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions

maybe we're like Brazil soccer

It’s not just winning, it’s winning the beautiful way.

If I’m David Stern, this high octane style is exactly the brand of basketball that I would want USA to represent to the rest of the world – one that inspires and amazes….not a JVG-approved “boring” team.

It’s why NBA rules have changed over the past two decades…to put a more entertaining product on the floor for the fans.

by banandy on Aug 30, 2010 7:46 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

sometimes the offense just looks so stagnant

it almost reminds me of the clippers (haha?). I agree, It feels like they are trying to force the fast break when it’s not there, then when the ball is stopped, just use their athleticism to break their man down, which half the time seems to result in a turnover. I’m no expert, so I’m not sure how to remedy this. I’m sure half of it is not having the extended chemistry with these guys to move the ball to the right spots and knowing where guys are going to cut and where they like to operate on the floor.

I’m sure the scouting report on the US team is to stop the fast break, and get them to play in the half court. Seems like most teams aren’t good enough to do that with good defense and just take a foul over giving up the fast break. But when a team doesn’t go for the rebound and seems to get 4 or 5 men back on defense right away, it seems like it gives them problems. I hope it doesn’t end up costing them in the long run.

by osamu on Aug 31, 2010 5:50 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree

I’m no expert either, but I think the solution is to put a guy out there with a post up game when Team USA has to play the halfcourt game. Unfortunately, they don’t have anyone who can do that. Too bad Team USA snubbed Chris Kaman for the Olympics and took overrated Tyson Chandler instead. Chris played for Germany, and now we can never have him back.

As far as things the team can actually do, I think having some guys playing off-ball could get something going. Odom, Love (if he got to play more than 10 minutes per game), and Chandler can set some off-ball screens so the shooters can get some space, instead of settling for contested 3’s (which was all I saw against Brazil). Guys like Gordon and Curry could do a lot of damage against man defenses if they were given the opportunity, and if the team’s PG’s were interested in (or in Westbrook’s case, capable of) setting up anyone besides themselves. As Osamu points out, Team USA relies on using “their athleticism to break their man down.” It looks like playground ball out there, and they’re better than that.

by Raining Buckets on Aug 31, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Have a link for the 2006 piece?

I searched for it in the archives but couldn’t find it.

by Michael White on Aug 31, 2010 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Old blog

Since Clips Nation launched in Sept 2006, everything I wrote about the 2006 Worlds was on the old blob, clippernation.blogspot.com. I could find any single piece that summarized the point succinctly, but I dance around it here. You can poke around through the archives to see more on that team.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Aug 31, 2010 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree with Raining Buckets. I though Westbrook was terrible the whole game and yet he got so much playing time. I didn’t mind Billups as much, although he was jacking up shots as if he was OJ Mayo. Rudy Gay was doing great on D and deserved more playing time. I don’t mind Gordon sitting out so much, but he certainly could have played more especially since Westbook was getting lost on D and jacking up turnovers. Rose did well on offense, but did anybody else notice him getting burned everytime he got attacked?

by Fan of the Game on Aug 30, 2010 9:34 PM PDT reply actions