How Would Barcelona do in NBA?

[GL32]

The USA, Argentina, Spain, Serbia and Greece have all been mentioned as the best teams of the last decade. I would like to add Lithuania just for the sake of it as it represents a serious omission, obviously not intended.

Besides that, we're not in the 90's anymore guys. The NBA is great but the overall level has increased in an impressive way over the last 10 years, a fact that all serious American analysts agree with, just as well as they agree with the fact Barca or any Euroleague champion would not be one of the worst NBA teams.
They are indeed based on a different conception that may be presenting disadvantages (smaller size, less overall talent compared to almost all the NBA teams), but has its own benefits (better shooting, better team work and better average in terms of fundamentals than most NBA teams). They could be called system-teams, and a well-organized system is by definition hard to beat, especially when its cogs are good players-some even very good with great winning mentality.

Ten years ago we would not be having that discussion. It may sound simplistic, but it does say a lot about the Euroleague competion and the overall level of European (and to some extent World) basketball. Ten years ago nobody in the States even had heard about the FIBA WC. Well, they surely deserved their recent win, but now they know and they care cause winning it is so damn hard, especially in competions where the absentees are not more than the ones there.

I love the NBA and I believe that in a way you have to as a basketball fan, meaning you can't exclude the best league in the world from your list. I did grow up with the Euroleague though, just like many people did with the NBA. That simply makes me care less about the NBA, just like it is hard for some NBA fans to admit the obvious. It is just human.
The trouble starts when people get disrespectful...

ps. Over the last ten years, the only American that you could call a Euroleague franchise player on a championship winning team was Anthony Parker (Langdon - the other American who won the Final Four MVP being good but too unidimensional), who went to NBA almost past his prime at age 31 and still was the second best player alongside TJ Ford in a play-off team after Bosh for a couple of seasons. Not exactly what you would call a role player right? (unless there is nothing between superstar and role player)

Europeans run the league in the last ten years and you just can't go all the way without them. Papaloukas, Jasikevicius, Bodiroga, Fucka, Siskauskas, Vujcic, Ginobili (yeah I know he's Argentinian but that doesn't make him American either), Navarro, Spanoulis, Teodosic and Diamantidis, those are (or were) the real difference makers in the Euroleague over the last decade, not the often very good American players that support them.

The bottom line is: An American has to be a star and pretty foundamentally sound in the NBA to be a real difference maker and a franchise players in the Euroleague. In other words, Childress or any other simply solid NBA player (or less) can make it to the All-Euroleague Team, but he can not lead his squad to the title. You need an NBA star (more than 15 ppg to be as precise as indulgent) for that, and definitely one who can shoot.

 

[Southpaw2]

The USA, Argentina, Spain, Serbia and Greece have all been mentioned as the best teams of the last decade. I would like to add Lithuania just for the sake of it as it represents a serious omission, obviously not intended.

Besides that, we're not in the 90's anymore guys. The NBA is great but the overall level has increased in an impressive way over the last 10 years, a fact that all serious American analysts agree with, just as well as they agree with the fact Barca or any Euroleague champion would not be one of the worst NBA teams.
They are indeed based on a different conception that may be presenting disadvantages (smaller size, less overall talent compared to almost all the NBA teams), but has its own benefits (better shooting, better team work and better average in terms of fundamentals than most NBA teams). They could be called system-teams, and a well-organized system is by definition hard to beat, especially when its cogs are good players-some even very good with great winning mentality.

Ten years ago we would not be having that discussion. It may sound simplistic, but it does say a lot about the Euroleague competion and the overall level of European (and to some extent World) basketball. Ten years ago nobody in the States even had heard about the FIBA WC. Well, they surely deserved their recent win, but now they know and they care cause winning it is so damn hard, especially in competions where the absentees are not more than the ones there.

I love the NBA and I believe that in a way you have to as a basketball fan, meaning you can't exclude the best league in the world from your list. I did grow up with the Euroleague though, just like many people did with the NBA. That simply makes me care less about the NBA, just like it is hard for some NBA fans to admit the obvious. It is just human.
The trouble starts when people get disrespectful...

ps. Over the last ten years, the only American that you could call a Euroleague franchise player on a championship winning team was Anthony Parker (Langdon - the other American who won the Final Four MVP being good but too unidimensional), who went to NBA almost past his prime at age 31 and still was the second best player alongside TJ Ford in a play-off team after Bosh for a couple of seasons. Not exactly what you would call a role player right? (unless there is nothing between superstar and role player)
Europeans run the league in the last ten years and you just can't go all the way without them. Papaloukas, Jasikevicius, Bodiroga, Fucka, Siskauskas, Vujcic, Ginobili (yeah I know he's Argentinian but that doesn't make him American either), Navarro, Spanoulis, Teodosic and Diamantidis, those are (or were) the real difference makers in the Euroleague over the last decade, not the often very good American players that support them.

The bottom line is: An American has to be a star and pretty foundamentally sound in the NBA to be a real difference maker and a franchise players in the Euroleague. In other words, Childress or any other simply solid NBA player (or less) can make it to the All-Euroleague Team, but he can not lead his squad to the title. You need an NBA star (more than 15 ppg to be as precise as indulgent) for that, and definitely one who can shoot.

I already discussed Parker. Parker was a late bloomer. He was league MVP in 2005 and 2006. In 2006 he joined Toronto. How can he be a role player right after he won 2 MVP. Your logic is telling me that Nash who just won back to back MVP 2005 and 2006 at the age of 31 and 32 should be a role in 2006-2007. Why cant you see the obvious truth that Parker is now finally playing in the NBA and hes not good enough to carry a team because the competition is stronger and the players are better. He can take over games in Europe but in NBA, he cant do that. He became simply a role player.

Ive seen guys supposedly superstars in Europe like Saras, VSpan- TMAC of Europe, Navarro and these guys are role players. Saras could hardly guard a lick and that is why he cant get minutes. VSpan was turning the ball over more often then executing a play, Navarro was bench player in one of the worst team in the NBA. You guys keep telling me that if they are in good system, they can be good. Yeah maybe and thats a big IF, but still be a role players. Its funny because when Sabas came over, Portland was loaded and he was still playing quality minutes. Hey maybe hes just that good. Hedo was getting minutes too on loaded Kings lineup, and he was a good player on every team he played. Okur was getting minutes with Pistons while Milicic is watching from the bench.

Childress was a role player at the NBA level. He is a quality player but he will never make any all NBA team. In Atlanta, he wasn't even an option. He was their 6th best player. Then all of sudden, hes one of the best players in Europe. He could have made more money and be a star in Europe. I dont why he chose to come back in NBA and be a role player again.

Look guys I am not saying all NBA players are better than all Euroleague players. No way in hell that unskilled guys like Mark Madsen, Bo Outlaw, and others are better player than the likes of Saras and VSpan but in NBA they are role players so if they can't fit in in that role, they will have hard time adjusting and getting minutes. Case in point, Bruce Bowen and Dennis Rodman were all primary option in college and they are scorers. But in NBA, they are not good enough to assume that role. So they work hard on the defensive end and became defensive stoppers.

Euroleague produced some of the NBA best players today so they are very competitive. But they are not the measuring stick of how good a player is. My point is that you measure how good a player is when he will faced the biggest challange and best competition available. Case in point, Pau Gasol may look unstoppable against STAT or Robin Lopez but when KG or Perkins is guarding him, he still good but not unstoppable. Westbrook was killing Fisher but when Kobe guarded him, he was limited. Durant was scoring at will in FIBA but Artest was able to contain him.

 

[SunOverHStreet]

Childress was a role player at the NBA level. He is a quality player but he will never make any all NBA team. In Atlanta, he wasn't even an option. He was their 6th best player. Then all of sudden, hes one of the best players in Europe. He could have made more money and be a star in Europe. I dont why he chose to come back in NBA and be a role player again.

I must have slept that part... He was a role player in NBA, so as in Europe. I understand that you have your opinion, but you're repeating yourself like a parrot without any back-up. Simply he was never one of the best players in Europe, just a good role player in his second year with Olympiakos. But, for money he was getting here, I expected miracles on the court.
The system is different from the one across the sea. In Europe, we really don't have stars, it's more team oriented basketball... The biggest strength of Barca is not Navarro or Mickael, but ability to maintain high tempo during the match by rotating 12 quality players.

 

[mvblair2]

Fun discussion, guys and gals.

...All in all, this is what can be claimed:

-The Euroleague can assemble a few teams with enough talent and quality to reach a higher level than some teams assembled with NBA players.

-The Euroleague in this age has the potential to assemble a few teams with enough talent and quality to upset ANY team with NBA players in an official match.

-The NBA has enough talent to assemble a few teams that can beat ANY team outside the NBA on a consistent basis.

Does anybody disagree with this? For me, these statements are pretty self-evident. Pretty obvious. Is anybody disagreeing with these statements?

Europeans run the league in the last ten years and you just can't go all the way without them. Papaloukas, Jasikevicius, Bodiroga, Fucka, Siskauskas, Vujcic, Ginobili (yeah I know he's Argentinian but that doesn't make him American either), Navarro, Spanoulis, Teodosic and Diamantidis, those are (or were) the real difference makers in the Euroleague over the last decade, not the often very good American players that support them.

Yes. Some of those Americans were very, very good, but not necessarily the stars (well...I guess I would call them "Jordan's Steve Kerr" or "Jordan's Dennis Rodman"). Langdon had that wonderful Final Four a few years ago, but his team had more than one "star" player, namely Siskauskas, Holden, Papaloukas, and a little kid named Smodis.

 

[Strida2]

Fun discussion, guys and gals. Does anybody disagree with this? For me, these statements are pretty self-evident. Pretty obvious. Is anybody disagreeing with these statements?

I don't get the "official match" thing. What does that mean? Another preseason game? Or something where both teams really want to win? Does he mean in a series?

 

[mvblair2]

I don't get the "official match" thing. What does that mean? Another preseason game? Or something where both teams really want to win? Does he mean in a series?

I think we're just talking about how Barca would do as an NBA team.

 

[Victorious2]

So if you do not believe that NBA is not the best measuring ground of individual skills and talent. WHERE IS THE BEST PLACE to MEASURE EACH PLaYER SKILLS?

Are you gonna tell me in FIBA where guys like Scola, Kleiza, Teodosic and Hedo are named in best 5. Granger is better than 4 of those players and he hardly played a lick with team USA.

Here are the facts

-Americans who are mostly NBA rejects are named 30 times to All EuroLeague Team First and Second Team. Thats 3 times more than any nation in Europe.

- US with NBA players have 71-7 record on Olympics and World Championship.

-NBA have record of 77-10 against Europe teams in Exhibition Matches.

The NBA is ALSO a measuring ground. Not THE measuring ground. No way Childress is better than Diamantidis, Siska, Langdon, Holden etc. in Europe. Saras in his prime was way better than Childress in Europe. List goes on. Should we label him as a better player because he performs better in the NBA?

Believe in what you want, but I made my point.

Your facts are irrelevant and do not contradict my claims. Read them carefully.

 

[Southpaw2]

I must have slept that part... He was a role player in NBA, so as in Europe. I understand that you have your opinion, but you're repeating yourself like a parrot without any back-up. Simply he was never one of the best players in Europe, just a good role player in his second year with Olympiakos. But, for money he was getting here, I expected miracles on the court.
The system is different from the one across the sea. In Europe, we really don't have stars, it's more team oriented basketball... The biggest strength of Barca is not Navarro or Mickael, but ability to maintain high tempo during the match by rotating 12 quality players.

You maybe right. In Europe there are no stars. Because how can you be named in All Euro League 2nd team and consider a role player.

 

[Southpaw2]

The NBA is ALSO a measuring ground. Not THE measuring ground. No way Childress is better than Diamantidis, Siska, Langdon, Holden etc. in Europe. Saras in his prime was way better than Childress in Europe. List goes on. Should we label him as a better player because he performs better in the NBA?

Believe in what you want, but I made my point.

Your facts are irrelevant and do not contradict my claims. Read them carefully.

You still did not answer my question.
so WHERE IS THE BEST MEASURING GROUND ON HOW GOOD IS A BASKETBALL PLAYER??? WHere where where.

Lets just follow your logic, Saras is a better player in Europe and Childress is a better player in NBA. So how come Childress can play good on both league and Saras can"t. Hmmmp And how come Ginobili is better than Childress in Europe and in NBA. hmmm

Like i said these guys have to proved it in NBA level. Just because Anthony Parker can take over games in Europe, he can do the same in the NBA.

Why cant you look at the skill and size and the level of competition. Langdon is the go to guy in CSKA but in NBA hes a 6'3 shooting guard. Not only he has go through the defense of guys like Bruce Bowen, Christie. he will also guard the likes of Kobe and Wade and TMac. In Europe he doesn't play against those type of players night in night out. In NBA, every game is like that. There are guys who can kill anyone on any given night. You play Charlotte and Stephen Jackson might destroy you like he did on Kobe. You go to Wolves and you catch Brewer on the wrong night then he might lit u up. You go Detroit, And Gordon might shooting all over the place. You to Cleveland and Mo Williams can caught on fire. And you go to Spurs, Manu will score everywhere. You go Washington, Arenas might lit up or even Nick Young. You go to Golden State and Monta Ellis can lit u up too. That is what an NBA all about. Every team and every game, someone can get hot and theres nothing you can do about it but maybe foul. The ones who can do it consistently separates the stars from role player.

 

[Southpaw2]

I don't get the "official match" thing. What does that mean? Another preseason game? Or something where both teams really want to win? Does he mean in a series?

In one game, they can beat anybody. But in a 7 game series with NBA rules, they will not beat any NBA team. In FIBA rules, they have a chance against the bottom feeders.

 

[GL32]

I already discussed Parker. Parker was a late bloomer. He was league MVP in 2005 and 2006. In 2006 he joined Toronto. How can he be a role player right after he won 2 MVP. Your logic is telling me that Nash who just won back to back MVP 2005 and 2006 at the age of 31 and 32 should be a role in 2006-2007. Why cant you see the obvious truth that Parker is now finally playing in the NBA and hes not good enough to carry a team because the competition is stronger and the players are better. He can take over games in Europe but in NBA, he cant do that. He became simply a role player.

Ive seen guys supposedly superstars in Europe like Saras, VSpan- TMAC of Europe, Navarro and these guys are role players. Saras could hardly guard a lick and that is why he cant get minutes. VSpan was turning the ball over more often then executing a play, Navarro was bench player in one of the worst team in the NBA. You guys keep telling me that if they are in good system, they can be good. Yeah maybe and thats a big IF, but still be a role players. Its funny because when Sabas came over, Portland was loaded and he was still playing quality minutes. Hey maybe hes just that good. Hedo was getting minutes too on loaded Kings lineup, and he was a good player on every team he played. Okur was getting minutes with Pistons while Milicic is watching from the bench.

Childress was a role player at the NBA level. He is a quality player but he will never make any all NBA team. In Atlanta, he wasn't even an option. He was their 6th best player. Then all of sudden, hes one of the best players in Europe. He could have made more money and be a star in Europe. I dont why he chose to come back in NBA and be a role player again.

Look guys I am not saying all NBA players are better than all Euroleague players. No way in hell that unskilled guys like Mark Madsen, Bo Outlaw, and others are better player than the likes of Saras and VSpan but in NBA they are role players so if they can't fit in in that role, they will have hard time adjusting and getting minutes. Case in point, Bruce Bowen and Dennis Rodman were all primary option in college and they are scorers. But in NBA, they are not good enough to assume that role. So they work hard on the defensive end and became defensive stoppers.

Euroleague produced some of the NBA best players today so they are very competitive. But they are not the measuring stick of how good a player is. My point is that you measure how good a player is when he will faced the biggest challange and best competition available. Case in point, Pau Gasol may look unstoppable against STAT or Robin Lopez but when KG or Perkins is guarding him, he still good but not unstoppable. Westbrook was killing Fisher but when Kobe guarded him, he was limited. Durant was scoring at will in FIBA but Artest was able to contain him.

The NBA is also a measuring ground, not THE measuring ground, like Victorious said. I mean of course the best league in the world has to be the ultimate criteria, but it can not be exclusive when Euroleague and FIBA basketball in general has been so competitive over the last decade.

To make myself clear I need to draw some comparisons. You mentioned Sabonis being good eventhough he was already 32 and injury prone within a loaded Portland Blazers and you're absolutely right. Sabas is hands down one of the 5 greatest European players of all times and of course he is better than any other European anywhere he plays. You did however aslo mention Hedo and Okur as being equally successful in the NBA, also true. Well, take a look at what they did with a Turkish national team that was not that bad. Outside Turkey they are lucky if they make the top 8 since 2003. My point is they are surely European all-time greats but how can I rank them higher than the Euroleague stars I mentioned above, who I give you were facing serious issues in the NBA?

The bottom line is, and I repeat myself, just because the Euroleague stars can not for the most part be superstars in the NBA (due to limited physical attributes), does not mean that some NBA stars who are not as transcendant as the 20 best players in the league can beat them on their own ground. I would say that winning in the Euroleague and FIBA basketball after winning in the NBA makes you a better player. It simply means your fundamentals are flawless. That is for exemple the main difference between Kobe and Lebron. I mean Lebron was pretty good under the FIBA game too, but Kobe was really the one leading his team to success. I believe that makes him a slightly better player overall.

As you see the two criteria (FIBA (Euroleague) - NBA) are cumulative, you have to make it in both games. Until 10 years ago, things were very simple: People were rightfully assuming that an NBA bench player was just as good as the Euroleague difference makers, cause sometimes guys like Rivers, Bowie and Edney were leading their teams to the Euroleague title. It's just not happening anymore. You have to be a fundamentally sound NBA star nowadays to lead a Euroleague team to a continental title and you're not gonna find more than 50 of those in the NBA. So yes my point is the Euroleague superstars are better in their league than all but around 40-50 NBA players. I don't know if that makes them better players overall, but it certainly does not make them worse just because they get outplayed by very many NBA players when they play under NBA rules in one on one situations.

As for Anthony Parker, just like I said, second best player on an NBA playoff team past his absolute prime (his numbers were already down his last season in Europe and he did not win the title) - not a Bowen or a Childress. If that's a role player than we simply disagree on the notion which is all right. Navarro started in 30 games in his rookie season, therefore I have reasons to believe he would become a legit NBA starter on an NBA team. I mean he can't defend but his shooting and floater are simply among the best in the world.

 

[NorCal2]

Incorrect. I never claimed that the Euroleague has more talent than the NBA. Nor that more Euroleague players make your team better per se.

If you analyse my previous post you will notice that I am contradicting some claims made by previous member(s):

Such as:
-NBA players (who get time) are better than Euroleague players.

-NBA is the best league in the world and therefore the norm to measure the quality of players.

-A team with many NBA players is, on the long run, ALWAYS better than a team with no NBA players.

The Greece-France example contradicts these claims. It proves that a team of Euroleague players can be consistently better/and of higher level than a team which is packed with NBA players.

Since that is the case, most of the Greek(Euroleague) players are better than most of the French which are NBA players. This is based on the criteria that one team consistently beats another and performs better. Not because one plays in the NBA or not.

All in all, this is what can be claimed:

-The Euroleague can assemble a few teams with enough talent and quality to reach a higher level than some teams assembled with NBA players.

-The Euroleague in this age has the potential to assemble a few teams with enough talent and quality to upset ANY team with NBA players in an official match.

-The NBA has enough talent to assemble a few teams that can beat ANY team outside the NBA on a consistent basis.

There must have been a miscommunication or mistyping somewhere. I responded with my black swan argument because you wrote the below:

I´m saying that a team packed with NBA players is essentially not as good as a team packed with ´none´

Must have been a misunderstanding.

I can agree with the three claims above.

 

[Victorious2]

You still did not answer my question.
so WHERE IS THE BEST MEASURING GROUND ON HOW GOOD IS A BASKETBALL PLAYER??? WHere where where.

Lets just follow your logic, Saras is a better player in Europe and Childress is a better player in NBA. So how come Childress can play good on both league and Saras can"t. Hmmmp And how come Ginobili is better than Childress in Europe and in NBA. hmmm

Like i said these guys have to proved it in NBA level.

You use the word BEST, which is an absolute term. And measuring skills can not be dealt in absolute terms.

You think that if someone performs in the NBA, can also play in Europe and is therefore a better player than the European player which performs excellent in Europe and can not play in the NBA.

If you want, we can create a new thread on the forum and make a list of players who do not play or did not make it in the NBA, but are still considered by many to be better players than the one who perform in the NBA.

Sure it's subjective. But that's my point, there are different ways to measure quality. Performing in the NBA is not a necesity.

Example:
Spanoulis > Tony Delk

Moreover,
I could easily assemble at least a full NBA and Eurleague player squad with this kind of comparisons and be pretty sure that the EL team will be better.

Ilgauskas, Turriaf, Bargnani, Childress,...list goes on. We have quite some better players than these in Europe.

Anyway, If you don t get this...too bad

 

[Victorious2]

[/B]

There must have been a miscommunication or mistyping somewhere. I responded with my black swan argument because you wrote the below:

I´m saying that a team packed with NBA players is essentially not as good as a team packed with ´none´

Must have been a misunderstanding.

I can agree with the three claims above.

Oh that, I was referring to the Greece and France comparison.

 

[Southpaw2]

You use the word BEST, which is an absolute term. And measuring skills can not be dealt in absolute terms.

You think that if someone performs in the NBA, can also play in Europe and is therefore a better player than the European player which performs excellent in Europe and can not play in the NBA.

If you want, we can create a new thread on the forum and make a list of players who do not play or did not make it in the NBA, but are still considered by many to be better players than the one who perform in the NBA.

Sure it's subjective. But that's my point, there are different ways to measure quality. Performing in the NBA is not a necesity.

Example:
Spanoulis > Tony Delk

Moreover,
I could easily assemble at least a full NBA

and Eurleague player squad with this kind of
comparisons and be pretty sure that the EL
team will be better.

Ilgauskas, Turriaf, Bargnani, Childress,...list
goes on. We have quite some better players than these in Europe.

Anyway, If you don t get this...too
bad

Best is not an absolute term. Absolute is free of imperfection. When I say Lakers are the BEST team in the NBA or Barca in Europe it means they are the BEST but not perfect. If you want to use the BEST in absolute term
the Lakers or Barca has to have a perfect record for the whole season to be the BEST. Going by your logic I guess no team is the BEST. But whatever floats your boat.

You have not answer my question. WHERE IS THE BEST MEASURING GROUND OF SKILLS AND TALENT?

Please answer that one for me.

 

[mvblair2]

You have not answer my question. WHERE IS THE BEST MEASURING GROUND OF SKILLS AND TALENT?

On basketball courts.

Ilgauskas, Turriaf, Bargnani, Childress,...list goes on. We have quite some better players than these in Europe.

Don't bring Ilgauskas into this discussion, man. Ilgauskas is one of my favorites. He gave us a lot of good years in Cleveland!

 

[Victorious2]

On basketball courts. Don't bring Ilgauskas into this discussion, man. Ilgauskas is one of my favorites. He gave us a lot of good years in Cleveland!

Since you already gave a good anwer, I will leave Ilgauskas out of the picture.

 

[Victorious2]

Best is not an absolute term. Absolute is free of imperfection. When I say Lakers are the BEST team in the NBA or Barca in Europe it means they are the BEST but not perfect. If you want to use the BEST in absolute term
the Lakers or Barca has to have a perfect record for the whole season to be the BEST. Going by your logic I guess no team is the BEST. But whatever floats your boat.

You have not answer my question. WHERE IS THE BEST MEASURING GROUND OF SKILLS AND TALENT?

Please answer that one for me.

WHERE to best measure? Doesn't matter. It wont give you a definitive answer since as you say it's not perfect. You prove nothing by it.

How? Now that is the more important question you should be asking. How can we find the best measuring ground of skills and talent?

My answer. NOT by letting it depend entirely on the WHERE.

 

[NorCal2]

On basketball courts. Don't bring Ilgauskas into this discussion, man. Ilgauskas is one of my favorites. He gave us a lot of good years in Cleveland!

Quick thought about Ilgauskas, I don't want to get too far off topic but he really impresses me with how productive he has been in his career given his obvious limitations. He's slow, he doesn't jump high, he's really not that strong even but he's consistently gotten it done.

I always respect players that get the most out of their limited athletic abilities, others I can think of off the top of my head:

-Brad Miller- can't run or jump, not fast, no post moves but still productive
-Chauncey Billups- he basically never blows by a defender, can't elevate and shoot over defenders but he has a lot of great head/shot fakes and good change of speed
-Tim Duncan- had better athleticism a few years ago but has lost a step and lift recently but still gets it done, he never looks like he's doing anything special when he gets the ball in the post but he's always getting himself the highest % shot possible

 

[SunOverHStreet]

You maybe right. In Europe there are no stars. Because how can you be named in All Euro League 2nd team and consider a role player.

Maybe you should try to watch some Euroleague games, since you're not able to think out of the "NBA molded" box.
Childress was never a star here, and truth to be told, he was bloody awful in his first season. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against him, but IMO he never justified the amount of money he got in Olympiakos.
As for for him being named in All Euroleague 2nd team, well, the answer lies in the bolded part... He played very good last season, fulfilled his role, his team reached finals, so he got rewarded. But, I'm not so sure about his pick, if Olympiakos didn't reach the final four (yes, Euroleague is funny little organization).
You see, Alex Marić was in the first team, but any of Euroleague fans would laugh at that idea that he could be considered as a star in Europe. Just year ago, he was playing bad for bottom table ACB team from Granada. He signed for Partizan, coach knew how to use him properly and his game greatly improved. All I'm saying is that one can't become a star over night, it doesn't work that way, especially in Europe. And, someone already mentioned it, there's no media hype here surrounding players like in NBA (which can do damage in some of the cases... ->Rubio).