Candace Parker/Olympic team thread (merged threads)

[UcMiami]

It was the third gold for former UConn stars Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi. Asked at a postgame news conference what it meant to win one for her coach and confidant Geno Auriemma, the normally bubbly Taurasi choked back a sob. "He knows me better than anyone else on this earth, including my family," said Taurasi, as tears trickled down her face.

Parker understands. She dedicated her gold medal to Auriemma's longtime rival Pat Summitt, the legendary Tennessee coach who shocked the basketball world by announcing she is fighting early onset Alzheimer's.

After her disappointing game in the semifinals against Australia, Parker tried to call Summitt, but was unable to reach her.

"She's watched every game," Parker reported. "We've traded texts. A huge piece of this gold medal goes to her.

"I wouldn't be here if not for her."

------ Has anyone suggested that perhaps Geno and Candace don't have good chemistry, and that the selection committee has concluded as much? Has there ever been another time that a player, after winning a world championship, dedicated a gold medal to the historical nemesis of her current coach? Does anyone really believe that Candace would not have become an all-world talent without Pat's influence? Candace is one of a few players (along with Maya Moore and Tamika Catchings and maybe Griner) who could have gone right from high school to starting in the WNBA. I believe this is about personalities and team chemistry, not about current basketball ability. It is also about the incredible wealth of talent that Team USA has to choose from. Still very disappointed that Parker will not be there.

I don't think there is any animosity between Geno and Pat at this point and I really doubt any gesture toward Pat by one of her players would in any way bother him. There are a lot of college players that go from college to starting in the WNBA. There are even quite a few that go from college directly to the next NT, including Bird, Taurasi, Fowles, Charles, Sims. There are only four who have played for the NT while still in college - Holdsclaw, Parker, Moore, and now Stewart. But of those as far as I know, none has started as a collegian and and only Moore started some of the games in the next team (5 of 8.) But Moore was also the only one to be playing for her former college coach in that competition.

I do think the choice came down to Parker or one of three forwards - EDD, Catchings, or Charles and even EDD may have been considered as one of the typically 2 spots reserved for newcomers to the team. Typically the NT has 10 veterans and two new-comers/new graduates.

 

[Goodgood]

So what if Geno thinks that Candace is not indispensable? He is the coach and his preference is with those he can get the most out and who always give 100 per cent and other personal tendencies.

He doesn't recruit on talent alone and he passed of some of the greatest players in the world because something isn't right.

He is responsible for making team work as a team, not an all-star showcase and the selected twelve players give him the best chance.

There are a LOT of talented players that are not on the team. Maybe in his eyes and the committee's, the selected twelve have more pluses than Candace, and all the other players in the USA.

I have no problem with CP3 not being selected. It is Geno's team and he is not going the safe way, he is going HIS best way. That is that.

All the LV fans will have their chance when they coach the next Olympic team.

 

[UcMiami]

Angel is a talent, and Geno knows that. Angel played well in 2012--when this pic was taken--but she played poorly in 2014. In Turkey, 9 players played well. Odyssey and Stewie played very little, so they don't count. Angel was out of control and not doing what the coaches wanted, so she had limited PT. All the others--Sue, Dee, Tina, Maya, Brit, Lindsay, Seimone, Candice, and Nneka--played well.

Agree - and you can extend it - she came into the USA NT in 2010 WC and played brilliantly coming off the bench as energizer - was second to Taurasi in PPG, and doubled up the number two players Catchings and Whalen with 24 steals. She again played brilliantly off the bench in 2012 OLY as the second leading scorer to Taurasi (shooting .620) and again led the team in steals by a wide margin with 20 while dishing 17 assists. Her one bad competition was the 2014 one when she just could seem to stop picking up fouls in the first few seconds on the floor and she ended up playing very few minutes.

One thing I found interesting with Candace in terms of her WNBA performance - since her playing under Geno and the other coaches in the 2012 Olympics her general stats have remained pretty consistent with her pre-2012 stats except in two respects - her assists per game have jumped and her steals per game have also increased. It is a pretty limited set of data points but pre 2012 her season high was 3.4 APG and post 2012 her season low is 3.8 with 4.3 and 6.8 years. Steals pre 2012 high 1.2 SPG, post 2012 1.2, 1.8, 1.9. It could all be teammates and maturation, but it is interesting.

 

[Icebear]

There has been nothing new added to these threads except veiled, or not so veiled, shots at various players. But carry on, if you must.

I am sorry, Nan, but I have gained a lot from others' posts. Some about the situation, some about the posters themselves, some about myself.

 

[UcMiami]

Lets face it, most of the threads on this board start with a few opinions or facts or some published report and then devolve into conjectures, speculations, etc, based on all of our years being intimately involved in being casual fans of WCBB.

 

[hoophuskee]

Some people are saying this was a Parker vs Stewart pick, but I don't think it came down to those two at all. I think the final choice was between Candace and Tina Charles. Here's my reasoning:

I agree with SwishNDish's assessment that you need Griner and Big Syl down low to deal with some of the international centers, and to give them room to operate you need your 4 to be a threat from the perimeter. Since Stewie and EDD are bigger 3-point threats than Candace, those two were solidly on the team. That leave Candace and Tina, who are sort of 'tweeters -- immensely talented but not as big at the 5 and not as good 3-point threats at the 4. So now the issue is if BG and Sylvia get into foul trouble, who would do better at the 5. When you add in Geno's familiarity with Tina, and I think there was a little favoritism here, Tina gets the nod over Candace.

I think a more interesting topic to debate is if an injury occurs to one of the 12 picks before the Games start, will Candace be asked to fill that spot and would she accept if offered?

UNLESS Stewart is going to play significant minutes in teams that threaten USA, it is idiotic to suggest Stewart took Parker's spot. The last spot on the team is NOT an option for Parker. To treat her like that - would be just as disgraceful or even more so. Think who wil us UCONN fans would be if another coach benched DT or Maya (whoever you love the most or if you love both equally/near equally.). SO I don't get the ire for example Peters has with Stewart selection (unless ofc Stewart plays decent clutch minutes vs threatening teams>). The committee told Parker there were other 3/4's that were more deserving than her. Because I don't feel Stewart will get much minutes in threatening games nor would Parker want to be a "last player on the bench", the ire should be that Parker is better than most if not all (for those that think she is the best). To many of us it is ridiculous to believe Parker isn't better.

Which comes to "fit for the team." IMO that's wrong too. First off a player such as Angel(she is a sf and a sg (not much of a shooter and imo not the great defender she used to be)). Thee are so many options for the 2/3 positions it is ridiculous). spending on the team the following players can play the sg-- Whelan, DT, Augustus, Maya, AND Catchings can guard sg's as long as you hav a shooter to back her up. Therefore a player like EDD on offense can be like a sg but guard sf's at the other end. Unless EDD is not capable to guard 3's? Orangutan at one time argued with me months ago that EDD was a 2/3 and huskynan identified EDD as a 2/3. An others have too. SO with all these possibilities, we could have easily substituted Parker for Angel. An example of Whelan as a sg, it's not like all the other teams have 6'0 DT's as a sg. And we would have Griner and Fowles to defend / help inside. Supreme shot blockers. not that it matters, I think EDD can b more of a 4/5 on defense but I'll yield on that because I'm not 100% nor 90% etc certain.

Also for "fit" we could have substituted Parker for Fowles but just like with Angel . The last two years for UCONN women we've heard how Stewart and Tuck would get mangled - beat up so much inside. How "the formula" was created after the MD game. What a crucial move it was that we Natalie etc. Even as far back as 2002-- lots of fear. IMO Tina Charles is the 2nd best center in all of women's basketball. Griner is 1st. Don't see the world's two best centers being outplayed on the same day. And e if they were- it would have to SIGNIFICANT for Team USA to lose. IMO this is just like what we heard after the UCONN - MD game. And what happens if a team goes "small-ball." They are sagging the post and our outside shooting off and sometimes Tina's offensive game is a bit off? If one can use a scenario that what happens if Tina and Griner are getting outplayed - then why not the scenario I put in italics too? Out of curiosity we had a debate two years ago if Stokes should start vs a guard. Those that want three centers (I know NOT ALL) but I wonder if it was a majority that felt Stokes start feel that we are seriously threatened with no Fowles. They could be right in this case. I'm just offering an alternate view. And after watching more I can change my mind!!!

And I think those that downplay Parker's are way way way over-exaggerating that point.

And I don't believe Griner is just a low post player. And overall I don't really know if we want to work on focusing giving the ball down to Fowles. So her having room to operate isn't a big deal.

 

[bbsamjj]

I have nothing really substantive to add, except a few comments on this thread:

1. IS ANYONE ELSE SHOCKED THAT THE USA SELECTION COMMITTEE GOT JUST ONE (1!) QUESTION ON PARKER IN THEIR ANNOUNCEMENT? This is the most shocking part of this whole process for me thus far.

2. Some have commented on the fact that it's a mark against Parker because she hasn't won a WNBA championship. This is I think a silly argument for a few reasons, not the least of which is that there are other players on the team (Charles, McCoughtry, EDD) who have not won a title. Six of the past seven championships have come from the Western Conference, where Parker's Sparks play. Three of them have been won by the Lynx, who currently have FOUR Olympians on their roster. Phoenix has won two, all with DT, Penny Taylor, and either Griner or Pondexter, making a very formidable big 3. Seattle won one when they had Bird and Lauren Jackson in her prime. Parker's Sparks have been very talented, but she's never had the guard play needed IMO to get them over the hump yet.

3. There have been a few posters saying that this must be something Parker did and thus this on her. Assuming this is true, not knowing what she did or did not do, who's to say even then she would be in the wrong? Perhaps USA Basketball's request was somehow unreasonable or unfair. We won't know, and while a part of me wants to demand answers, if I was advising either USA Basketball, the team, or Parker, I'd tell them to do what they are doing publicly: stay above it.

 

[hoophuskee]

So what if Geno thinks that Candace is not indispensable? He is the coach and his preference is with those he can get the most out and who always give 100 per cent and other personal tendencies.

He doesn't recruit on talent alone and he passed of some of the greatest players in the world because something isn't right.

He is responsible for making team work as a team, not an all-star showcase and the selected twelve players give him the best chance.

There are a LOT of talented players that are not on the team. Maybe in his eyes and the committee's, the selected twelve have more pluses than Candace, and all the other players in the USA.

I have no problem with CP3 not being selected. It is Geno's team and he is not going the safe way, he is going HIS best way. That is that.

All the LV fans will have their chance when they coach the next Olympic team.

I'm a basketball fan-I'd like to know why. Is it wrong to inquire? Isn't it fun that some of us have different opinions? This isn't much different than when we project who would start or what type of recruit we'd want to see next etc is it? If it was only about "Geno is the coach" -- without other discussions - that wouldn't be fun for me and I think many others.

 

[Goodgood]

I'm a basketball fan-I'd like to know why. Is it wrong to inquire? Isn't it fun that some of us have different opinions? This isn't much different than when we project who would start or what type of recruit we'd want to see next etc is it? If it was only about "Geno is the coach" -- without other discussions - that wouldn't be fun for me and I think many others.

We all are basketball fans. If it is something I can fix or at least help, I would devote more energy. It is not, and this will be as much as we will ever know. Nothing.
As Nan wrote, unless there is something other that what is stated, not hearsay and guesswork, I have no more to add.

 

[LesMis89]

Below is a quote from Jim Fuller's article, linked previously on this thread, that I found very interesting.

Connecticut Sun general manager Chris Sienko is one of the five committee members and at yesterday's media day he addressed the situation as much as he could.

"It was an eye-opening process because I am very familiar with the athletes in the league and a few collegiate players over the last couple of years," Sienko said. "I just think that the depth of knowledge of who these players are, watching them workout, watching them overseas when I was at the World Championships or on a day to day basis at WNBA games was different than it was before because you look at them with a different (way). How are they interacting with their teammates? How are they responding to adverse situations? What are they doing if things are going against them just all sorts of different things. They may not mean anything in the bigger picture but it is the way that I started to assess players differently.

 

[hoophuskee]

I have nothing really substantive to add, except a few comments on this thread:

1. IS ANYONE ELSE SHOCKED THAT THE USA SELECTION COMMITTEE GOT JUST ONE (1!) QUESTION ON PARKER IN THEIR ANNOUNCEMENT? This is the most shocking part of this whole process for me thus far.

2. Some have commented on the fact that it's a mark against Parker because she hasn't won a WNBA championship. This is I think a silly argument for a few reasons, not the least of which is that there are other players on the team (Charles, McCoughtry, EDD) who have not won a title. Six of the past seven championships have come from the Western Conference, where Parker's Sparks play. Three of them have been won by the Lynx, who currently have FOUR Olympians on their roster. Phoenix has won two, all with DT, Penny Taylor, and either Griner or Pondexter, making a very formidable big 3. Seattle won one when they had Bird and Lauren Jackson in her prime. Parker's Sparks have been very talented, but she's never had the guard play needed IMO to get them over the hump yet.

3. There have been a few posters saying that this must be something Parker did and thus this on her. Assuming this is true, not knowing what she did or did not do, who's to say even then she would be in the wrong? Perhaps USA Basketball's request was somehow unreasonable or unfair. We won't know, and while a part of me wants to demand answers, if I was advising either USA Basketball, the team, or Parker, I'd tell them to do what they are doing publicly: stay above it.

I agree with one though I wouldn't call it "most shocking." Most is no Parker.
With number 2 I agree 100%.


And with number 3 - I don't understand your point fully. You are saying that as a fan - even though I am of the women's game, don't tell me what I want to know?

 

[hoophuskee]

We all are basketball fans. If it is something I can fix or at least help, I would devote more energy. It is not, and this will be as much as we will ever know. Nothing.
As Nan wrote, unless there is something other that what is stated, not hearsay and guesswork, I have no more to add.

SO how were you able to "fix" the starting 5 when that discussion comes up? Or when people say the want "so-and-so" recruit more than another because we're weak at "such-an-such position?" Are these also "so what questions" for you? They're fun for me. My fun isn't bothering you, is it?

 

[ThisJustIn]

My two cents - people might want to expand their understanding of "chemistry." Sometimes players hate each other off the court and play together brilliantly on the court. Sometimes it's the exact opposite. That can be labeled as "team chemistry."

But I also think chemistry can speak to team work ethic, team sensibility, team trust. Do you, as an individual, go hard in the sprint? Do you get back on defense? Do you look for your teammates on offense? Are you open to what the coaches are asking you to do? Are you working to get all your teammates on the same page?

Politics: Of course USA basketball is "political." But "political" can include personal beefs as well as a person's demeanor. I don't see anyone suggesting that who someone loves has impacted the selection committee, or what folks have tattooed on their skin. So let's talk politics - how you comport yourself (thank you Doris) as a representative of the United States be it to the staff, coaching staff, fellow players, opposition players and/or press. What decisions you make to be part of USA basketball or not. What you say OUTSIDE of USA basketball. Why? Because USA has the luxury of choosing from a talented pool of players. They have the "luxury" of saying USA basketball is a privilege, not a right.

My one cent: No frickin' doubt Parker is talented. But I was not impressed with Parker in the 2012 Olympics. Folks point to her game v. France and go, "ooooo." I go "meh," it was France. When the team was tested, v. Australia, I didn't see her effort and drive.

My other cent: Marketing and Parker. You market who you had, not who you think you'll have picked. Plenty of examples of players being cut or traded.

My plug nickel: For me, this was one of the most challenging years of Committee selection. NOT for the Rio team, but because of the future teams. Good folks were going to be left off, no doubt... I understand that. I'm interested in the "extras" to be named - in particular, guards, because that's where I see USA's biggest future challenge.

 

[UConnCat]

I have nothing really substantive to add, except a few comments on this thread:

1. IS ANYONE ELSE SHOCKED THAT THE USA SELECTION COMMITTEE GOT JUST ONE (1!) QUESTION ON PARKER IN THEIR ANNOUNCEMENT? This is the most shocking part of this whole process for me thus far.

2. Some have commented on the fact that it's a mark against Parker because she hasn't won a WNBA championship. This is I think a silly argument for a few reasons, not the least of which is that there are other players on the team (Charles, McCoughtry, EDD) who have not won a title. Six of the past seven championships have come from the Western Conference, where Parker's Sparks play. Three of them have been won by the Lynx, who currently have FOUR Olympians on their roster. Phoenix has won two, all with DT, Penny Taylor, and either Griner or Pondexter, making a very formidable big 3. Seattle won one when they had Bird and Lauren Jackson in her prime. Parker's Sparks have been very talented, but she's never had the guard play needed IMO to get them over the hump yet.

3. There have been a few posters saying that this must be something Parker did and thus this on her. Assuming this is true, not knowing what she did or did not do, who's to say even then she would be in the wrong? Perhaps USA Basketball's request was somehow unreasonable or unfair. We won't know, and while a part of me wants to demand answers, if I was advising either USA Basketball, the team, or Parker, I'd tell them to do what they are doing publicly: stay above it.

I'm not really surprised that USA BB was asked only one question about Parker at the press conference. That may be the story for a lot of people, especially those who frequent message boards, but it surely wasn't the most important issue to many. That day was about announcing the team for Rio and about building interest and enthusiasm for the USA Olympic team as a whole. Some things are bigger than one player.

Other than Voepel, who has devoted space to this issue? I ask that question seriously; I don't know. I checked Lin Dunn's twitter account since Lin uses twitter to say a lot about a lot of things (she's fun and thoughtful, btw) and Lin's only comments were to Voepel ("journalists don't know everything") and responding to Doug Feinberg ("there's always 4 sides to every issue"). Feinberg, btw, was part of the twitter discussion with Voepel about journalists not knowing everything and said "sometimes you can't write what goes on because it's off the record conversation and won't see the light of day." ) Sometimes issues that generate outrage or strong feelings in the bubble of fan message boards don't matter all that much to people outside the bubble.

As for the point about Parker and championships, I don't think anyone is suggesting that winning a championship is a prerequisite to making the Olympic team. I think some posters reference the lack of a WNBA championship in reaction to the claim that she's the best player in the world, etc. We tend to judge great players in sports, men's or women's, fairly or unfairly, by championships. Parker has won them overseas but not in the WNBA. I don't know why she hasn't, though it always seems to be a matter of the coach or her teammates aren't quite good enough. BTW, Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson won 2 WNBA championships together -- 2004 and 2010.

As for your point about USA BB and "staying above it," I agree. It has to be that way, not only to protect its process of choosing players but also to protect the players. Forcing USA BB to come clean on why a particular player wasn't chosen could reveal negatives about that player (on-court, off-court, etc) which is not good for anyone involved. Just because fans want to know specifics about the player deliberations doesn't mean we need to know or should know. This will eventually pass for most fans and it will be about winning gold.

 

[UConnCat]

My two cents - people might want to expand their understanding of "chemistry." Sometimes players hate each other off the court and play together brilliantly on the court. Sometimes it's the exact opposite. That can be labeled as "team chemistry."

But I also think chemistry can speak to team work ethic, team sensibility, team trust. Do you, as an individual, go hard in the sprint? Do you get back on defense? Do you look for your teammates on offense? Are you open to what the coaches are asking you to do? Are you working to get all your teammates on the same page?

Politics: Of course USA basketball is "political." But "political" can include personal beefs as well as a person's demeanor. I don't see anyone suggesting that who someone loves has impacted the selection committee, or what folks have tattooed on their skin. So let's talk politics - how you comport yourself (thank you Doris) as a representative of the United States be it to the staff, coaching staff, fellow players, opposition players and/or press. What decisions you make to be part of USA basketball or not. What you say OUTSIDE of USA basketball. Why? Because USA has the luxury of choosing from a talented pool of players. They have the "luxury" of saying USA basketball is a privilege, not a right.

My one cent: No frickin' doubt Parker is talented. But I was not impressed with Parker in the 2012 Olympics. Folks point to her game v. France and go, "ooooo." I go "meh," it was France. When the team was tested, v. Australia, I didn't see her effort and drive.

My other cent: Marketing and Parker. You market who you had, not who you think you'll have picked. Plenty of examples of players being cut or traded.

My plug nickel: For me, this was one of the most challenging years of Committee selection. NOT for the Rio team, but because of the future teams. Good folks were going to be left off, no doubt... I understand that. I'm interested in the "extras" to be named - in particular, guards, because that's where I see USA's biggest future challenge.

So well said.

I agree on the 2012 Olympics and the Australia game. I made this exact point in one of the other two massive threads. The Gold Medal was won in the semi-final game against Australia and USA BB remembers who showed up and who didn't. Maybe this goes to Sienko's points (which undoubtedly were purposeful): "How are they responding to adverse situations? What are they doing if things are going against them just all sorts of different things. They may not mean anything in the bigger picture but it is the way that I started to assess players differently."

 

[hoophuskee]

Below is a quote from Jim Fuller's article, linked previously on this thread, that I found very interesting.

Connecticut Sun general manager Chris Sienko is one of the five committee members and at yesterday's media day he addressed the situation as much as he could.

"It was an eye-opening process because I am very familiar with the athletes in the league and a few collegiate players over the last couple of years," Sienko said. "I just think that the depth of knowledge of who these players are, watching them workout, watching them overseas when I was at the World Championships or on a day to day basis at WNBA games was different than it was before because you look at them with a different (way). How are they interacting with their teammates? How are they responding to adverse situations? What are they doing if things are going against them just all sorts of different things. They may not mean anything in the bigger picture but it is the way that I started to assess players differently.

I'd be very interested what the last sentence means. What is "bigger" than the "bigger picture?" Does he mean his selections weren't part of the "bigger picture?"

I had "a fear" I posted a while back that sometimes committee's or coaches etc can overthink something. Conversely, a player could become such a pain -- but then again there should be other player's to keep another in line.

And the word "interacting" better mean in terms of fit and not "love one another."

 

[Goodgood]

SO how were you able to "fix" the starting 5 when that discussion comes up? Or when people say the want "so-and-so" recruit more than another because we're weak at "such-an-such position?" Are these also "so what questions" for you? They're fun for me. My fun isn't bothering you, is it?

Stopped reading. Only because you quoted me. Have fun.

 

[hoophuskee]

Below is a quote from Jim Fuller's article, linked previously on this thread, that I found very interesting.

Connecticut Sun general manager Chris Sienko is one of the five committee members and at yesterday's media day he addressed the situation as much as he could.

"It was an eye-opening process because I am very familiar with the athletes in the league and a few collegiate players over the last couple of years," Sienko said. "I just think that the depth of knowledge of who these players are, watching them workout, watching them overseas when I was at the World Championships or on a day to day basis at WNBA games was different than it was before because you look at them with a different (way). How are they interacting with their teammates? How are they responding to adverse situations? What are they doing if things are going against them just all sorts of different things. They may not mean anything in the bigger picture but it is the way that I started to assess players differently.

I'd be very interested what the last sentence means. What is "bigger" than the "bigger picture?" Does he mean his selections weren't part of the "bigger picture?"

I had "a fear" I posted a while back that sometimes committee's or coaches etc can overthink something. Conversely, a player could become such a pain -- but then again there should be other player's to keep another in line.

And the word "interacting" better mean in terms of "fit" and not "like one another." It's interesting but still on the surface seems overblown.

 

[tony yusef]

Excuse me, but one thing I haven't read about this entire business is that USA Basketball picked Geno to coach the team, twice now. It was obviously a success the first time. It would be difficult for anyone to mount a plausible argument that he's not the absolute best person on the planet for this job.

So maybe he does influence the selection of the players on the team. I'm sure he probably does. And that's why they hired him to do the job in the first place. They're going to listen to what he has to say on that topic. They've chosen him for his ability as a coach and to analyze what he thinks the best possible team would be to win the gold. End of story.

If that means that personalities, attitudes, commitment, hairs on the back of his neck, or angels dancing on the head of pins enter into his recommendations, so be it. Whether he arrives at his conclusions objectively, subjectively, or some combination of both, they trust him to make those calls. He's the coach, period.

Whew, I finally found a post I can wrap my arms around, I hope Geno was the SOLE reason she was not picked for the team. He is the coach and should have the team that he thinks can win the gold. If that doesn't include Candace Parker, oh well. As great as Candace Parker has been as a player she is nowhere close to what Geno Auriemma has been as a coach and team builder.. This team will find a way to persevere without her.
As someone has pointed out previously, she lost by a 3-2 vote that immediately tells me there is more to this story. I for one don't doubt for a second that the right decision was made.

 

[hoophuskee]

[QUOTE="
My one cent: No frickin' doubt Parker is talented. But I was not impressed with Parker in the 2012 Olympics. Folks point to her game v. France and go, "ooooo." I go "meh," it was France. When the team was tested, v. Australia, I didn't see her effort and drive.

[/QUOTE]

We can agree to disagree. I certainly am one who said "ooooo." I think a well-deserving "oooo." I think her role is made for coming off the bench as 6th man and completely changing the momentum of the game. The game with France "did happen" and France was playing. And Parker DID have a positive impact. And from what I've seen in the WNBA - she still is a beast. There is no reason for me not to believe she couldn't transition as a better "6th man" if you told her from the start "This is what I want you to do." Geno made a great move- and I saw it work. You can't take that away- diminish all you want - I don't agree.

 

[hoophuskee]

Whew, I finally found a post I can wrap my arms around, I hope Geno was the SOLE reason she was not picked for the team. He is the coach and should have the team that he thinks can win the gold. If that doesn't include Candace Parker, oh well. As great as Candace Parker has been as a player she is nowhere close to what Geno Auriemma has been as a coach and team builder.. This team will find a way to persevere without her.
As someone has pointed out previously, she lost by a 3-2 vote that immediately tells me there is more to this story. I for one don't doubt for a second that the right decision was made.

Everything you said other than praise for Geno and that USA will still win- I disagree with. As fans - other than Geno- we are completely on opposite sides. Would you say "oh well" if this was another coach on the Olympics and he or she didn't allow a prime DT or prime Maya? Would you say "Oh well?"

 

[bbsamjj]

There were a number of stories nationally that ran about Parker not being included on the team before the announcement was made. In a year where this team is expected to pretty easily win another gold, with a lot of the same faces they've had in the past, that's pretty much as big of a story line you're going to get for the team.

As for championships, my point was that the WNBA is a very competitive league, and it takes multiple great players (ideally in the post and at guard/wing), even if you're the best in the world, to win a championship. Sue Bird never won a championship without Lauren Jackson (who was arguably the best player in the world for a while). Diana Taurasi has never won a championships without at least two other great players on the roster. Go back to the initial Houston Comets teams--they had Cooper, Swoopes, and Thompson. The Sparks have two great posts in Parker and Nneka, but you need great guards in the WNBA to win at the highest level, particularly in the postseason.

I'm not really surprised that USA BB was asked only one question about Parker at the press conference. That may be the story for a lot of people, especially those who frequent message boards, but it surely wasn't the most important issue to many. That day was about announcing the team for Rio and about building interest and enthusiasm for the USA Olympic team as a whole. Some things are bigger than one player.

Other than Voepel, who has devoted space to this issue? I ask that question seriously; I don't know. I checked Lin Dunn's twitter account since Lin uses twitter to say a lot about a lot of things (she's fun and thoughtful, btw) and Lin's only comments were to Voepel ("journalists don't know everything") and responding to Doug Feinberg ("there's always 4 sides to every issue"). Feinberg, btw, was part of the twitter discussion with Voepel about journalists not knowing everything and said "sometimes you can't write what goes on because it's off the record conversation and won't see the light of day." ) Sometimes issues that generate outrage or strong feelings in the bubble of fan message boards don't matter all that much to people outside the bubble.

As for the point about Parker and championships, I don't think anyone is suggesting that winning a championship is a prerequisite to making the Olympic team. I think some posters reference the lack of a WNBA championship in reaction to the claim that she's the best player in the world, etc. We tend to judge great players in sports, men's or women's, fairly or unfairly, by championships. Parker has won them overseas but not in the WNBA. I don't know why she hasn't, though it always seems to be a matter of the coach or her teammates aren't quite good enough. BTW, Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson won 2 WNBA championships together -- 2004 and 2010.

As for your point about USA BB and "staying above it," I agree. It has to be that way, not only to protect its process of choosing players but also to protect the players. Forcing USA BB to come clean on why a particular player wasn't chosen could reveal negatives about that player (on-court, off-court, etc) which is not good for anyone involved. Just because fans want to know specifics about the player deliberations doesn't mean we need to know or should know. This will eventually pass for most fans and it will be about winning gold.

 

[Icebear]

My two cents - people might want to expand their understanding of "chemistry." Sometimes players hate each other off the court and play together brilliantly on the court. Sometimes it's the exact opposite. That can be labeled as "team chemistry."

But I also think chemistry can speak to team work ethic, team sensibility, team trust. Do you, as an individual, go hard in the sprint? Do you get back on defense? Do you look for your teammates on offense? Are you open to what the coaches are asking you to do? Are you working to get all your teammates on the same page?

Politics: Of course USA basketball is "political." But "political" can include personal beefs as well as a person's demeanor. I don't see anyone suggesting that who someone loves has impacted the selection committee, or what folks have tattooed on their skin. So let's talk politics - how you comport yourself (thank you Doris) as a representative of the United States be it to the staff, coaching staff, fellow players, opposition players and/or press. What decisions you make to be part of USA basketball or not. What you say OUTSIDE of USA basketball. Why? Because USA has the luxury of choosing from a talented pool of players. They have the "luxury" of saying USA basketball is a privilege, not a right.

My one cent: No frickin' doubt Parker is talented. But I was not impressed with Parker in the 2012 Olympics. Folks point to her game v. France and go, "ooooo." I go "meh," it was France. When the team was tested, v. Australia, I didn't see her effort and drive.

My other cent: Marketing and Parker. You market who you had, not who you think you'll have picked. Plenty of examples of players being cut or traded.

My plug nickel: For me, this was one of the most challenging years of Committee selection. NOT for the Rio team, but because of the future teams. Good folks were going to be left off, no doubt... I understand that. I'm interested in the "extras" to be named - in particular, guards, because that's where I see USA's biggest future challenge.

Very well said, TJI.

 

[LesMis89]

I'd be very interested what the last sentence means. What is "bigger" than the "bigger picture?" Does he mean his selections weren't part of the "bigger picture?"

I had "a fear" I posted a while back that sometimes committee's or coaches etc can overthink something. Conversely, a player could become such a pain -- but then again there should be other player's to keep another in line.

And the word "interacting" better mean in terms of "fit" and not "like one another." It's interesting but still on the surface seems overblown.

Not sure what you think is 'overblown'.

The pool of players from which the selection committee chooses the NT is truly elite. Their ability to put up impressive stats is unquestioned and can be very similar, as other comparison posts have shown. At that point the committee must look at less tangible factors that go into making a successful and winning team. Sienko gave his thoughts on those intangibles.