Page 41 of 53 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 820 of 1053
  1. #801
    Quote Originally Posted by heyman25 View Post
    Not a fan of Pop! Arrogant condescending man. Like Tatum, but would like to see Pop squirm if they don't get the Gold!
    My initial thought was to clap back against this, but then I remembered Dean Smith coached the Olympic team in '76. My family pulled for the Soviets.

  2. #802
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    MKE
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Dat View Post
    Slept through my alarm, woke up at 2am, been watching this Q4. Tatum making a lot of plays. Rubio playing like an MVP. Letís finish this thing.
    I'm not sure what this says about anything (maybe nothing), bur Rubio - who scored 38 against the US last night, 9 more than Kevin Durant - has a career NBA scoring average of 11 ppg, averaged 8.6 ppg last season, and has a career high of 34 points.

  3. #803
    I'm hoping all the heavy criticism of Pop and the national team was as premature as the eagerness to fire Budenholzer, dismiss the Greek Freak as a truly great player, and give up on his supporting cast a few times along their championship run.

  4. #804
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    USA gets Australia in the semis after the Aussies destroyed Argentina. A nice rematch opportunity for the loss in Las Vegas.

    The team appears to be getting more familiar with one another. Hopefully that combined with the increase in talent (Booker, Holiday, and Middleton playing now instead of Garland, Johnson, Grant (who is on the roster but basically not playing), and Beal) they should be able to emerge victorious.

  5. #805
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by phaedrus View Post
    I'm not sure what this says about anything (maybe nothing), bur Rubio - who scored 38 against the US last night, 9 more than Kevin Durant - has a career NBA scoring average of 11 ppg, averaged 8.6 ppg last season, and has a career high of 34 points.
    https://results.nbcolympics.com/bask...final-2/677583

    Yet Rubio had a +/- of -23 in a game where the score differential was 14. A good team should generally beat a lesser team where one player had a huge game. We may test that theory against Slovenia.

  6. #806
    Quote Originally Posted by roywhite View Post
    https://results.nbcolympics.com/bask...final-2/677583

    Yet Rubio had a +/- of -23 in a game where the score differential was 14. A good team should generally beat a lesser team where one player had a huge game. We may test that theory against Slovenia.
    Yep. Turn Rubio into a scorer. He can beat you with a 27/17 game. But can't beat you as a scorer. I am generally of the opinion that great guards simply can't be contained. Ball handling is simply to good to be defended without a trap, and trapping leads to open 3s and losses. Defend PGs on an island and make them one dimensional.

  7. #807
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    The women blew out Australia 79-55 to move to the semis. Chelsea Gray had 7 points in 19 minutes off the bench. She also led the team with 8 assists.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  8. #808
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    USA gets Australia in the semis after the Aussies destroyed Argentina. A nice rematch opportunity for the loss in Las Vegas.

    The team appears to be getting more familiar with one another. Hopefully that combined with the increase in talent (Booker, Holiday, and Middleton playing now instead of Garland, Johnson, Grant (who is on the roster but basically not playing), and Beal) they should be able to emerge victorious.
    On underrated aspect I hadn't realized: there are fewer games at the Olympic this year. In years past, the 12 teams were in two groups of six. Playing each other once meant five group stage games. Then three knockout rounds.

    Now the 12 teams are in three groups of four, so each team plays only three group stage games before the quarterfinals. It doesn't seem like a huge change, but that's 40% fewer group stage games.

    Agree that Team USA is looking better each game. If this tournament lasted two more weeks I'd feel extremely bullish about our chances. But we don't have that time, have to do it on the fly. And the margin for error is much lower now that we're down to the clear top-4 teams in the tournament.

    Alas, my days of watching a game until 2:30 AM are behind me, so I'll have to wait for the headlines in the morning, and gird myself against waking up to "Australia STUNS United States" headlines.

  9. #809
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth&Justise View Post
    Ö.I'll have to wait for the headlines in the morning, and gird myself against waking up to "Australia STUNS United States" headlines.
    Come on now, TJ, think only positive thoughts.

    Letís go, Team USA!!
    🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸

  10. #810
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth&Justise View Post
    On underrated aspect I hadn't realized: there are fewer games at the Olympic this year. In years past, the 12 teams were in two groups of six. Playing each other once meant five group stage games. Then three knockout rounds.

    Now the 12 teams are in three groups of four, so each team plays only three group stage games before the quarterfinals. It doesn't seem like a huge change, but that's 40% fewer group stage games.

    Agree that Team USA is looking better each game. If this tournament lasted two more weeks I'd feel extremely bullish about our chances. But we don't have that time, have to do it on the fly. And the margin for error is much lower now that we're down to the clear top-4 teams in the tournament.

    Alas, my days of watching a game until 2:30 AM are behind me, so I'll have to wait for the headlines in the morning, and gird myself against waking up to "Australia STUNS United States" headlines.
    I somehow doubt folks would be stunned.

  11. #811
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I somehow doubt folks would be stunned.
    Anyone paying attention to this tournament would not be. But that's almost certainly what the headlines would be.

  12. #812
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth&Justise View Post
    Anyone paying attention to this tournament would not be. But that's almost certainly what the headlines would be.
    The US has been tapped as a 12 point favorite against Australia by bookies around the world. The men are -350 to win the gold medal. The women, by the way, are -650 to win the gold. That -350 implies about a 77% chance that Team USA will win the men's tournament. The -650 converts to almost an 87% chance the women win the gold.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  13. #813
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    The US has been tapped as a 12 point favorite against Australia by bookies around the world. The men are -350 to win the gold medal. The women, by the way, are -650 to win the gold. That -350 implies about a 77% chance that Team USA will win the men's tournament. The -650 converts to almost an 87% chance the women win the gold.
    Even so, who would be "stunned" if Team USA lost their next game?

  14. #814
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Even so, who would be "stunned" if Team USA lost their next game?
    Well, depends on your definition of "stunned." The bookies have the US at -700 to beat the Aussies, which is an 87.5% chance of winning the game. Does something that happens 1 time in 8 qualify as stunning?
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  15. #815
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Pops poking his middle finger up thru his gravesite dirt...this should be interesting.

  16. #816
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Well, depends on your definition of "stunned." The bookies have the US at -700 to beat the Aussies, which is an 87.5% chance of winning the game. Does something that happens 1 time in 8 qualify as stunning?
    it shouldn't be...but humans are hilariously bad at evaluating tail risk. If KP said Duke had an 87.5% chance of winning a first round NCAA game, I think we'd call it a pretty stunning loss.
    basketball is back, baby!

  17. #817
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    it shouldn't be...but humans are hilariously bad at evaluating tail risk. If KP said Duke had an 87.5% chance of winning a first round NCAA game, I think we'd call it a pretty stunning loss.
    I mean, I guess I'm quite skeptical that Team USA has an 87.5% chance of victory.

  18. #818
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I mean, I guess I'm quite skeptical that Team USA has an 87.5% chance of victory.
    I concur.
    basketball is back, baby!

  19. #819
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I mean, I guess I'm quite skeptical that Team USA has an 87.5% chance of victory.
    But I could see the money rolling in on Team USA, hence the odds.

  20. #820
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    it shouldn't be...but humans are hilariously bad at evaluating tail risk. If KP said Duke had an 87.5% chance of winning a first round NCAA game, I think we'd call it a pretty stunning loss.
    People are also so incredibly bad at thinking about how frequently something with a 12.5% chance of occurring actually occurs. The odds of you having twins is around 4%. Think how many twins you know.

Similar Threads

  1. 3 x 3 basketball to be played in the Olympics
    By Billy Dat in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 03-30-2018, 11:44 AM
  2. New Olympics Basketball Thread- Non-USA Teams
    By Olympic Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-10-2012, 01:28 PM
  3. 2012 Olympics Basketball Thread: The non-USA Teams
    By awhom111 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 07-27-2012, 01:51 PM
  4. Olympics basketball- prop on K
    By chi in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-25-2008, 11:54 AM
  5. The Olympics and Duke basketball
    By atl52 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-22-2008, 07:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •