2013 CB Historical Draft Thread

[AB_Celtic]

Nick/anyone else care if we just declare 4.1 now?

[indeedproceed]

Question: when you guys Re assembling the players, do the eras the players were dominant in have a significant bearing on who you select?

Example: Does a guy who was dominant pre-merger in the doped up 70's (say, Kareem, or Cowens) have a worse standing than a guy who was amazing but not necessarily dominant than a guy who was playing in the more competitive 80's, like Dr J or Dominique Wilkins?

[freshinthehouse]

Question: when you guys Re assembling the players, do the eras the players were dominant in have a significant bearing on who you select?

Example: Does a guy who was dominant pre-merger in the doped up 70's (say, Kareem, or Cowens) have a worse standing than a guy who was amazing but not necessarily dominant than a guy who was playing in the more competitive 80's, like Dr J or Dominique Wilkins?

I know as a panelist I def look at ABA numbers with a jaundiced eye.  As far as drugs, I think the cocaine era went from about 75 to 85, so I don't penalize players from the 70s that much.  One thing I do look at is a teams record.  There were a lot of players putting up monster scoring numbers on terrible teams in this era.  Those players get taken down a peg or two in my book.

[Moranis]

I will more than likely miss Friday.  To whom should I send my list?

Send it to me Moranis. I'll do it for you.

Thanks nick.  I will send it tonight.

[Roy H.]

Question: when you guys Re assembling the players, do the eras the players were dominant in have a significant bearing on who you select?

Example: Does a guy who was dominant pre-merger in the doped up 70's (say, Kareem, or Cowens) have a worse standing than a guy who was amazing but not necessarily dominant than a guy who was playing in the more competitive 80's, like Dr J or Dominique Wilkins?

I'll be looking at the era a little bit when making assessments.

Also, I'll be assuming that all players are playing under 1983 NBA rules.

[Rondo2287]

Question: when you guys Re assembling the players, do the eras the players were dominant in have a significant bearing on who you select?

Example: Does a guy who was dominant pre-merger in the doped up 70's (say, Kareem, or Cowens) have a worse standing than a guy who was amazing but not necessarily dominant than a guy who was playing in the more competitive 80's, like Dr J or Dominique Wilkins?

I'll be looking at the era a little bit when making assessments.

Also, I'll be assuming that all players are playing under 1983 NBA rules.

I've never been quite sure how Era should be involved in these.  For example Shaq and Russel were equally dominant in their era's (Russel probably more dominant than shaq actually) but I don't think there is any scientific way a guy of Russel's stature could hold up against Shaq when both were in their prime. 

Shaq was 4 inches taller and had over 100 pounds on Russel right?

As such, I have always just kinda considered dominance in the era and not held the era against a player.  They can only beat who they play, much like boise state 

[freshinthehouse]

If Russell had today's training and dietary info at his disposal, my guess is he'd be a bit thicker, kind of in an Alonzo Morning mold.  Alonzo was never big for a center, but he's not someone that got pushed around in the paint.  Now imagine someone Alonzo's size that could jump through the roof and run like a deer.  That would be what a modern day Bill Russell would be like IMO.

[Rondo2287]

If Russell had today's training and dietary info at his disposal, my guess is he'd be a bit thicker, kind of in an Alonzo Morning mold.  Alonzo was never big for a center, but he's not someone that got pushed around in the paint.  Now imagine someone Alonzo's size that could jump through the roof and run like a deer.  That would be what a modern day Bill Russell would be like IMO.

Thats kinda my point, that I compare players dominance in an era rather than how they would match up straight up. 

[nickagneta]

Question: when you guys Re assembling the players, do the eras the players were dominant in have a significant bearing on who you select?

Example: Does a guy who was dominant pre-merger in the doped up 70's (say, Kareem, or Cowens) have a worse standing than a guy who was amazing but not necessarily dominant than a guy who was playing in the more competitive 80's, like Dr J or Dominique Wilkins?

I'll be looking at the era a little bit when making assessments.

Also, I'll be assuming that all players are playing under 1983 NBA rules.

I've never been quite sure how Era should be involved in these.  For example Shaq and Russel were equally dominant in their era's (Russel probably more dominant than shaq actually) but I don't think there is any scientific way a guy of Russel's stature could hold up against Shaq when both were in their prime. 

Shaq was 4 inches taller and had over 100 pounds on Russel right?

As such, I have always just kinda considered dominance in the era and not held the era against a player.  They can only beat who they play, much like boise state 

I don't exactly agree with this.

Russell played Wilt a guy almost as big as Shaq and definitely as strong if not stronger, and he played him a lot more regularly than Shaq played the best of the best centers. And Russell broke even or won most of those match ups. I also see that a guy like Ben Wallace, a guy the size of Russell, played Shaq tough once Wallace hit his defensive prime and contained him. Cowens also a small center gave Kareem absolute fits.

I think era can transfer if you are the best of the best.

I do however think both the NBA and the ABA were watered down leagues during their simultaneous existence. The ABA probably was watered down more but for the best of the best, if they were in the NBA during that period instead of the ABA, I really don't think their stats would have been effected that much because the NBA was watered down as well.

So I disagree with Roy in that sense and will probably judge the teams differently because of that.

And this is why when we do this we get a group of panelists. Judging is subjective.

BTW, I am not sure my panelist colleagues agree with me right now but the difference between the teams, as we stand RIGHT NOW, is so minimal as to not exist. The GMing has been superb and the teams are really that close in quality right now.

Its these next 3-5 rounds that I think will create the differences in the teams.

[Rondo2287]

Question: when you guys Re assembling the players, do the eras the players were dominant in have a significant bearing on who you select?

Example: Does a guy who was dominant pre-merger in the doped up 70's (say, Kareem, or Cowens) have a worse standing than a guy who was amazing but not necessarily dominant than a guy who was playing in the more competitive 80's, like Dr J or Dominique Wilkins?

I'll be looking at the era a little bit when making assessments.

Also, I'll be assuming that all players are playing under 1983 NBA rules.

I've never been quite sure how Era should be involved in these.  For example Shaq and Russel were equally dominant in their era's (Russel probably more dominant than shaq actually) but I don't think there is any scientific way a guy of Russel's stature could hold up against Shaq when both were in their prime. 

Shaq was 4 inches taller and had over 100 pounds on Russel right?

As such, I have always just kinda considered dominance in the era and not held the era against a player.  They can only beat who they play, much like boise state 

I don't exactly agree with this.

Russell played Wilt a guy almost as big as Shaq and definitely as strong if not stronger, and he played him a lot more regularly than Shaq played the best of the best centers. And Russell broke even or won most of those match ups. I also see that a guy like Ben Wallace, a guy the size of Russell, played Shaq tough once Wallace hit his defensive prime and contained him. Cowens also a small center gave Kareem absolute fits.

I think era can transfer if you are the best of the best.

I do however think both the NBA and the ABA were watered down leagues during their simultaneous existence. The ABA probably was watered down more but for the best of the best, if they were in the NBA during that period instead of the ABA, I really don't think their stats would have been effected that much because the NBA was watered down as well.

So I disagree with Roy in that sense and will probably judge the teams differently because of that.

And this is why when we do this we get a group of panelists. Judging is subjective.

BTW, I am not sure my panelist colleagues agree with me right now but the difference between the teams, as we stand RIGHT NOW, is so minimal as to not exist. The GMing has been superb and the teams are really that close in quality right now.

Its these next 3-5 rounds that I think will create the differences in the teams.

Is it too much to ask for a definitive and objective stance on a subjective topic?

[RebusRankin]

Washington is going to add another fantastic player today just saying.

[RebusRankin]

Getting this in before work. So to kick off round 4, with the 4.1 Washington selects Walter Davis.

[nickagneta]

The Bullets have been shooting me requests to pick their guy for about the last 12 hours and have finally convinced me to allow them to pull the trigger. Take your shot Bullets. You are on the clock and this draft is open.

[RebusRankin]

Thanks Nick for letting us pick and putting up with us. We're adding Walter Davis.

[Rondo2287]

The second pick is on the block im willing to move down but not out of this round