Based on fat people in vegas who are wiling to bet that they can make >90% and they don't lose

You mean the ones where he thinks that the DT shooting slightly worse, from a shorter 3pt line, on way fewer attempts, against worse teams, is somehow evidence that they are basically equivalent to the 2012 team at 3pt shooting?

Yeah those were pretty good.

Here's a video of Arenas making 73/100 3's in practice with one hand

Was it you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=771MZ...eature=related

Mike Miller going like 37/40

and here is JJ redick not hitting 90%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NMEJJ5mPhU

one person gets it, one person doesn't. i've been called condescending before, and will be again, but lol @ a guy who basically does it anonymously despite having been a member for 7 years.

So you have a problem with anonymity huh. Interesting. Does this mean Triumph36 is your real name?

LOL indeed.

The time doesn't really matter much for the guys we're talking about. They're going to shoot the shot the same way they'd shoot an open shot in a game. It's just getting a perfect pass, in a perfect spot, with nobody on you, not tired, no thought other than shoot, and no pressure. There's probably some 50 year old man somewhere who made 600 ft's in a row or something to get in the record book but talking like the best shooter on an NBA team the ton of time to set up stipulation really doesn't matter.

There are guys that shoot those exact shots in game situations at a ridiculous percentage as well there just aren't many shots like that. 3-point contest shots mentioned earlier aren't anything like that.

I'd also change my answer for some guys if they picked the spot. There are guys who are gross from a specific spot where they just don't miss it'd be higher than 80%. 80% is about where the best guys shoot at all the 3pt spots during a typical shoot-around I think Brent's 9/10 is high if he's talking about that.

Also, if it's the exact same spot and they get to pick when the 10 starts it might be closer to 90% than 80%. First shot is always harder. It's the same with ft's if you can bet with a guy where you always get the 2nd ft and he gets the 1st it's a good bet (by a decent margin for some guys).

I know some guys like what you're talking about. I'm a lot fatter than when I played but wouldn't shoot noticeably worse in that type of spot.

If it's over 90% and they're a stone lock it's not an NBA 3 and/or it's probably a loose rim. NBA court, NBA ball, NBA line and the guy fading the action can pick the spot behind the line (not the distance the angle, he can obv step up to the line) there isn't a guy I wouldn't bet even money against quickly.

My posts are searchable; even though I don't use my real name, there is a history to this account. I don't start new accounts to snipe at other posters.

It means they under performed in this specific game (or Spain over-performed). As they did in other games in these Olympics. The sample size is extremely small, but it's all we have to go on. There really is no strong argument pro-12 or pro-92 so any sort of possible evidence has to be used.

It's relevant because a 46 point difference would be some serious variance. It is impossible to know, but just dismissing it as variance isn't a very strong argument either.

I've only argued based off of the 2012 team's performance vs the 1992 team's performance in the Olympic games (other than comparing the Rondo HORSE argument to a Larry Bird/MJ MacDonald's commercial, which was clearly a joke). Seeing as you admit the 92ers have a better argument based off of today's performance it would seem you agree that comparing performance in the Olympics is one of the better metrics to use. Like I said above though, there really is no solid argument for either side and these types of debates cross into all different sports with no resolution. Orr vs Gretzky for example.

The stats from the 1992 Olympics are definitely useful when making a point. Those numbers are indicative of the type of basketball player Jordan was at that point in his career.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but if not then I'd have to disagree. Jordan won NBA MVP in the 91/92 season with much much better stats than the above. Not to mention the quoted poster is once again underrating the talent on some of the teams the '92 team faced (excluding Angola). Meanwhile teams like Lithuania in this years tournament are being touted as much better than their '92 counterparts despite having zero facts to back that up.

If you think that's why I started a new account then all I can say is get over yourself pal.

And even if you had my old account name, what would that do for you? Do you really have nothing better to do than search through my old posts? Get a life IMO.

People keep using the '92 Croatia team as an example of there being legit international talent back then, but they really weren't that good. Drazen Petrovic was their most hyped player and he only put up a 15.8 PER in 1992. There were at least 10 international players in this year's Olympics that were better. And Toni Kukoc struggled when he came into the NBA as a rookie in 93/94. It wasn't until the 94/95 season that he really started to play well.

Yeah the 92 Lithuania team was good. European basketball as a whole is a ton better than it was then but that team was really good.

I don't disagree that making open shots is a lot easier, but the point is being overstated. League-average free throw percentage is 75%.

Why do you think Iggy, Vhawk, GinneDat, El Rata, and the rest disappeared? Because they know they are on the losing side, so insults is all they have left.

+1, this must be more of the "BAD" arguement

Skip Bayless just said the 2012 team would get swept in a 7 game series against the Dream Team.

The USA had to start sending NBA players to the 1992 Olympics due to one thing.
Arvydas Sabonis (on a reconstucted achilles) and the USSR beating the college kids in 1988.

Yet no one was any good back in 1992.

you know you're right when BADUU and Skip Bayless are on your side

I should run the country.

Are you arguing that the quality of play required to beat college kids and play with the best players in the nba is the same?