Author Topic: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft - VOTES ARE IN  (Read 32897 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #870 on: December 05, 2020, 04:42:37 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24175
  • Tommy Points: 1165
Can't post in the ''How Does My Team Look'' thread. Is it locked? Anyway, I'm posting here.

@mods
Feel free to move the post to the other thread.


Quote from: Somebody
Seeking for opinions about my squad, or advice on what type of players should I get to improve it.
I've never watched Dandridge, Porter and Gus Williams play. I started following the NBA in the mid/late 90s, but I was just a little kid at the time. That being said, I read your previous post carefully. Your comps for Dandridge and Porter are intriguing to say the least: Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups. Wow!

If your comps are indicative of their skill set, then you got one of the best teams in the draft.

PG: Billups
SG: Butler
SF: Pierce
PF: Draymond
C: Gobert

I'm with Rody regarding Draymond's shooting. Sure, he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game that season, but that's just 1 season. His career average is 31.9% from 3 on 2.8 attempts per game. Can't take the 38.8 number at face value, much less given that he was playing next to Steph and Klay. He got tons of wide open looks next to them.

All in all, I believe you have built a very balanced team. Best defensive team in the draft, no doubt about that.
I disagree regarding Draymond, I'll just paste my post defending his shooting ability here:
Quote
I suggest you take a closer look at Draymond's work in 2016 - he was a legitimate three point threat who burnt teams when they sagged off of him (he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game and came up huge in the playoffs against non-OKC teams when he didn't need to bang with 2-3 bigs all by himself: he averaged 38.9 on 3.6 attempts in 5 games against Houston, 43.3% on 6 attempts in 5 games against Portland and 40.6% on 5.3 attempts in 7 games against Cleveland). It wasn't like it was a one-season wonder as well - he shot 34.4% from 3 on 3.6 attempts per game from 2015-2017 in the RS and averaged the same percentage on 4.4 attempts per game in the same span in the playoffs. This is clearly at least a slightly above league average shooter on high volume (remember that bigs weren't shooting 5, 6, 7+ threes until the last season or two) and he really has the look of a strong big man floor spacer in 2016. The claim that he was shooting them with no one around him is simply false: a quick look at the tape would show that he was used as a pop big and was a real target for kickouts before his decline. Teams respected his jumpshot well enough that some would have a big stuck onto him and close out on him quickly in defensive rotations, giving Draymond the spacing effect that stretch bigs had on offence
But it is a one year fluke in otherwise poor to mediocre shooting career.  That is like someone claiming Magic Johnson was a really good shooter because he had that one year late in his career where he shot 38.4% on 3.5 attempts even though the two surrounding seasons were 31.4 and 32.0 and he never really showed shooting touch earlier. 

People aren't just going to look at Draymond and call him anything other than a poor shooter, because that is what he was.  And I get that we are using only one season, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to think about the other seasons when they think of who the player was.
The spirit of the game is that the season picked is important because players have up and down years and years with injury. Take a guy like Grant Hill. Which year you select makes a massive difference. Most remember the player he was most of his career because he was pretty good, but he was special before the injury.

Magic and Draymond had a season or two where they shot the three at a good rate. You select that year and though they weren't noted to be good outside shooters, they were in those seasons and that should be how they are judged.

Of course, you can't force people to not consider a player's entire career, but the original concept of choosing one year was that the way the player performed in that season mattered. And so, if they had a career year in shooting, or rebounding, or scoring that is how the player should be perceived.

You can't make people judge things in that manner, but that is the way the game was designed. And if people aren't going to judge it that way, what's the sense of picking a year.
It isn't that the season picked doesn't matter, id absolutely does, but for me it is more that the season picked isn't going to fundamentally change how I view a player, especially if that season seems out of place for the totality of the career.  I mean Rodman had a season where he shot 31.7% from 3 on 1.2 attempts a game (and teams only averaged 7.6 attempts and 33.1% that year so Rodman wasn't much below average).  You will never be able to convince me that Rodman will keep anyone honest from deep, even if you picked that season where he wasn't terrible. 
2021 Historical Draft - 5th Pick - Raptors
PG - Tiny Archibald 73, Don Buse 77, Terrell Brandon 96
SG - Chet Walker 67, Michael Cooper 87, Raja Bell 06
SF - Predrag "Peja" Stojakovic 04, Kiki Vandeweghe 87, Robert Covington 18
PF - Karl Malone 97, Spencer Haywood 73, David West 08
C - Ben Wallace 04, George Mikan 50, Al Jefferson 08

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #871 on: December 05, 2020, 05:36:59 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42137
  • Tommy Points: 8155
Can't post in the ''How Does My Team Look'' thread. Is it locked? Anyway, I'm posting here.

@mods
Feel free to move the post to the other thread.


Quote from: Somebody
Seeking for opinions about my squad, or advice on what type of players should I get to improve it.
I've never watched Dandridge, Porter and Gus Williams play. I started following the NBA in the mid/late 90s, but I was just a little kid at the time. That being said, I read your previous post carefully. Your comps for Dandridge and Porter are intriguing to say the least: Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups. Wow!

If your comps are indicative of their skill set, then you got one of the best teams in the draft.

PG: Billups
SG: Butler
SF: Pierce
PF: Draymond
C: Gobert

I'm with Rody regarding Draymond's shooting. Sure, he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game that season, but that's just 1 season. His career average is 31.9% from 3 on 2.8 attempts per game. Can't take the 38.8 number at face value, much less given that he was playing next to Steph and Klay. He got tons of wide open looks next to them.

All in all, I believe you have built a very balanced team. Best defensive team in the draft, no doubt about that.
I disagree regarding Draymond, I'll just paste my post defending his shooting ability here:
Quote
I suggest you take a closer look at Draymond's work in 2016 - he was a legitimate three point threat who burnt teams when they sagged off of him (he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game and came up huge in the playoffs against non-OKC teams when he didn't need to bang with 2-3 bigs all by himself: he averaged 38.9 on 3.6 attempts in 5 games against Houston, 43.3% on 6 attempts in 5 games against Portland and 40.6% on 5.3 attempts in 7 games against Cleveland). It wasn't like it was a one-season wonder as well - he shot 34.4% from 3 on 3.6 attempts per game from 2015-2017 in the RS and averaged the same percentage on 4.4 attempts per game in the same span in the playoffs. This is clearly at least a slightly above league average shooter on high volume (remember that bigs weren't shooting 5, 6, 7+ threes until the last season or two) and he really has the look of a strong big man floor spacer in 2016. The claim that he was shooting them with no one around him is simply false: a quick look at the tape would show that he was used as a pop big and was a real target for kickouts before his decline. Teams respected his jumpshot well enough that some would have a big stuck onto him and close out on him quickly in defensive rotations, giving Draymond the spacing effect that stretch bigs had on offence
But it is a one year fluke in otherwise poor to mediocre shooting career.  That is like someone claiming Magic Johnson was a really good shooter because he had that one year late in his career where he shot 38.4% on 3.5 attempts even though the two surrounding seasons were 31.4 and 32.0 and he never really showed shooting touch earlier. 

People aren't just going to look at Draymond and call him anything other than a poor shooter, because that is what he was.  And I get that we are using only one season, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to think about the other seasons when they think of who the player was.
The spirit of the game is that the season picked is important because players have up and down years and years with injury. Take a guy like Grant Hill. Which year you select makes a massive difference. Most remember the player he was most of his career because he was pretty good, but he was special before the injury.

Magic and Draymond had a season or two where they shot the three at a good rate. You select that year and though they weren't noted to be good outside shooters, they were in those seasons and that should be how they are judged.

Of course, you can't force people to not consider a player's entire career, but the original concept of choosing one year was that the way the player performed in that season mattered. And so, if they had a career year in shooting, or rebounding, or scoring that is how the player should be perceived.

You can't make people judge things in that manner, but that is the way the game was designed. And if people aren't going to judge it that way, what's the sense of picking a year.
It isn't that the season picked doesn't matter, id absolutely does, but for me it is more that the season picked isn't going to fundamentally change how I view a player, especially if that season seems out of place for the totality of the career.  I mean Rodman had a season where he shot 31.7% from 3 on 1.2 attempts a game (and teams only averaged 7.6 attempts and 33.1% that year so Rodman wasn't much below average).  You will never be able to convince me that Rodman will keep anyone honest from deep, even if you picked that season where he wasn't terrible.
Then there is no sense in picking seasons. If you pick a season and that player shot well in that season, then that good shooting version of that player is who you get. That's the entire point of picking the season. If that doesn't count for anything, then let's just get rid of picking seasons because it means nothing.

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #872 on: December 05, 2020, 06:13:20 PM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2604
  • Tommy Points: 271
Can't post in the ''How Does My Team Look'' thread. Is it locked? Anyway, I'm posting here.

@mods
Feel free to move the post to the other thread.


Quote from: Somebody
Seeking for opinions about my squad, or advice on what type of players should I get to improve it.
I've never watched Dandridge, Porter and Gus Williams play. I started following the NBA in the mid/late 90s, but I was just a little kid at the time. That being said, I read your previous post carefully. Your comps for Dandridge and Porter are intriguing to say the least: Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups. Wow!

If your comps are indicative of their skill set, then you got one of the best teams in the draft.

PG: Billups
SG: Butler
SF: Pierce
PF: Draymond
C: Gobert

I'm with Rody regarding Draymond's shooting. Sure, he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game that season, but that's just 1 season. His career average is 31.9% from 3 on 2.8 attempts per game. Can't take the 38.8 number at face value, much less given that he was playing next to Steph and Klay. He got tons of wide open looks next to them.

All in all, I believe you have built a very balanced team. Best defensive team in the draft, no doubt about that.
I disagree regarding Draymond, I'll just paste my post defending his shooting ability here:
Quote
I suggest you take a closer look at Draymond's work in 2016 - he was a legitimate three point threat who burnt teams when they sagged off of him (he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game and came up huge in the playoffs against non-OKC teams when he didn't need to bang with 2-3 bigs all by himself: he averaged 38.9 on 3.6 attempts in 5 games against Houston, 43.3% on 6 attempts in 5 games against Portland and 40.6% on 5.3 attempts in 7 games against Cleveland). It wasn't like it was a one-season wonder as well - he shot 34.4% from 3 on 3.6 attempts per game from 2015-2017 in the RS and averaged the same percentage on 4.4 attempts per game in the same span in the playoffs. This is clearly at least a slightly above league average shooter on high volume (remember that bigs weren't shooting 5, 6, 7+ threes until the last season or two) and he really has the look of a strong big man floor spacer in 2016. The claim that he was shooting them with no one around him is simply false: a quick look at the tape would show that he was used as a pop big and was a real target for kickouts before his decline. Teams respected his jumpshot well enough that some would have a big stuck onto him and close out on him quickly in defensive rotations, giving Draymond the spacing effect that stretch bigs had on offence
But it is a one year fluke in otherwise poor to mediocre shooting career.  That is like someone claiming Magic Johnson was a really good shooter because he had that one year late in his career where he shot 38.4% on 3.5 attempts even though the two surrounding seasons were 31.4 and 32.0 and he never really showed shooting touch earlier. 

People aren't just going to look at Draymond and call him anything other than a poor shooter, because that is what he was.  And I get that we are using only one season, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to think about the other seasons when they think of who the player was.
The spirit of the game is that the season picked is important because players have up and down years and years with injury. Take a guy like Grant Hill. Which year you select makes a massive difference. Most remember the player he was most of his career because he was pretty good, but he was special before the injury.

Magic and Draymond had a season or two where they shot the three at a good rate. You select that year and though they weren't noted to be good outside shooters, they were in those seasons and that should be how they are judged.

Of course, you can't force people to not consider a player's entire career, but the original concept of choosing one year was that the way the player performed in that season mattered. And so, if they had a career year in shooting, or rebounding, or scoring that is how the player should be perceived.

You can't make people judge things in that manner, but that is the way the game was designed. And if people aren't going to judge it that way, what's the sense of picking a year.
It isn't that the season picked doesn't matter, id absolutely does, but for me it is more that the season picked isn't going to fundamentally change how I view a player, especially if that season seems out of place for the totality of the career.  I mean Rodman had a season where he shot 31.7% from 3 on 1.2 attempts a game (and teams only averaged 7.6 attempts and 33.1% that year so Rodman wasn't much below average).  You will never be able to convince me that Rodman will keep anyone honest from deep, even if you picked that season where he wasn't terrible.
Then there is no sense in picking seasons. If you pick a season and that player shot well in that season, then that good shooting version of that player is who you get. That's the entire point of picking the season. If that doesn't count for anything, then let's just get rid of picking seasons because it means nothing.
In all honesty, it means pretty much nothing to me in this draft. It made perfect sense in the 21st century draft, cause we had to select players who had at least 1 decent season in the 21st century. For instance, Barkley played a few games in the 1999/00 season. If we weren't supposed to pick a single season, he would have been considered one of the best players in the draft. Obviously, Barkley is an all-time great, but he was a nonfactor in the 21st century.

This ain't the case in our current draft. Given that we can select whichever season we want from a player's career, I don't see the point in singling out a specific season. We can just assume that all players are in their prime.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Since that's what we have decided, I'm perfectly happy with it. 

edit: I guess it makes sense for players who developed a specific skill past their prime. For instance, Jason Kidd became a good 3pt shooter. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a player from our draft that fits into this category, but chances are there are plenty of them.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2020, 08:35:34 PM by Jvalin »

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #873 on: December 05, 2020, 06:19:57 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43706
  • Tommy Points: -27030
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Can't post in the ''How Does My Team Look'' thread. Is it locked? Anyway, I'm posting here.

@mods
Feel free to move the post to the other thread.


Quote from: Somebody
Seeking for opinions about my squad, or advice on what type of players should I get to improve it.
I've never watched Dandridge, Porter and Gus Williams play. I started following the NBA in the mid/late 90s, but I was just a little kid at the time. That being said, I read your previous post carefully. Your comps for Dandridge and Porter are intriguing to say the least: Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups. Wow!

If your comps are indicative of their skill set, then you got one of the best teams in the draft.

PG: Billups
SG: Butler
SF: Pierce
PF: Draymond
C: Gobert

I'm with Rody regarding Draymond's shooting. Sure, he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game that season, but that's just 1 season. His career average is 31.9% from 3 on 2.8 attempts per game. Can't take the 38.8 number at face value, much less given that he was playing next to Steph and Klay. He got tons of wide open looks next to them.

All in all, I believe you have built a very balanced team. Best defensive team in the draft, no doubt about that.
I disagree regarding Draymond, I'll just paste my post defending his shooting ability here:
Quote
I suggest you take a closer look at Draymond's work in 2016 - he was a legitimate three point threat who burnt teams when they sagged off of him (he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game and came up huge in the playoffs against non-OKC teams when he didn't need to bang with 2-3 bigs all by himself: he averaged 38.9 on 3.6 attempts in 5 games against Houston, 43.3% on 6 attempts in 5 games against Portland and 40.6% on 5.3 attempts in 7 games against Cleveland). It wasn't like it was a one-season wonder as well - he shot 34.4% from 3 on 3.6 attempts per game from 2015-2017 in the RS and averaged the same percentage on 4.4 attempts per game in the same span in the playoffs. This is clearly at least a slightly above league average shooter on high volume (remember that bigs weren't shooting 5, 6, 7+ threes until the last season or two) and he really has the look of a strong big man floor spacer in 2016. The claim that he was shooting them with no one around him is simply false: a quick look at the tape would show that he was used as a pop big and was a real target for kickouts before his decline. Teams respected his jumpshot well enough that some would have a big stuck onto him and close out on him quickly in defensive rotations, giving Draymond the spacing effect that stretch bigs had on offence
But it is a one year fluke in otherwise poor to mediocre shooting career.  That is like someone claiming Magic Johnson was a really good shooter because he had that one year late in his career where he shot 38.4% on 3.5 attempts even though the two surrounding seasons were 31.4 and 32.0 and he never really showed shooting touch earlier. 

People aren't just going to look at Draymond and call him anything other than a poor shooter, because that is what he was.  And I get that we are using only one season, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to think about the other seasons when they think of who the player was.
The spirit of the game is that the season picked is important because players have up and down years and years with injury. Take a guy like Grant Hill. Which year you select makes a massive difference. Most remember the player he was most of his career because he was pretty good, but he was special before the injury.

Magic and Draymond had a season or two where they shot the three at a good rate. You select that year and though they weren't noted to be good outside shooters, they were in those seasons and that should be how they are judged.

Of course, you can't force people to not consider a player's entire career, but the original concept of choosing one year was that the way the player performed in that season mattered. And so, if they had a career year in shooting, or rebounding, or scoring that is how the player should be perceived.

You can't make people judge things in that manner, but that is the way the game was designed. And if people aren't going to judge it that way, what's the sense of picking a year.
It isn't that the season picked doesn't matter, id absolutely does, but for me it is more that the season picked isn't going to fundamentally change how I view a player, especially if that season seems out of place for the totality of the career.  I mean Rodman had a season where he shot 31.7% from 3 on 1.2 attempts a game (and teams only averaged 7.6 attempts and 33.1% that year so Rodman wasn't much below average).  You will never be able to convince me that Rodman will keep anyone honest from deep, even if you picked that season where he wasn't terrible.
Then there is no sense in picking seasons. If you pick a season and that player shot well in that season, then that good shooting version of that player is who you get. That's the entire point of picking the season. If that doesn't count for anything, then let's just get rid of picking seasons because it means nothing.

I tend to agree more with nick.  Aberrations / career seasons should count.  Now, you might argue a player was benefitting from a system thatís not similar to what heís playing in here, but overall, if a guy was great in the year chosen, thereís no reason to think he wonít repeat the same.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #874 on: December 05, 2020, 10:35:33 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6598
  • Tommy Points: 449
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
Can't post in the ''How Does My Team Look'' thread. Is it locked? Anyway, I'm posting here.

@mods
Feel free to move the post to the other thread.


Quote from: Somebody
Seeking for opinions about my squad, or advice on what type of players should I get to improve it.
I've never watched Dandridge, Porter and Gus Williams play. I started following the NBA in the mid/late 90s, but I was just a little kid at the time. That being said, I read your previous post carefully. Your comps for Dandridge and Porter are intriguing to say the least: Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups. Wow!

If your comps are indicative of their skill set, then you got one of the best teams in the draft.

PG: Billups
SG: Butler
SF: Pierce
PF: Draymond
C: Gobert

I'm with Rody regarding Draymond's shooting. Sure, he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game that season, but that's just 1 season. His career average is 31.9% from 3 on 2.8 attempts per game. Can't take the 38.8 number at face value, much less given that he was playing next to Steph and Klay. He got tons of wide open looks next to them.

All in all, I believe you have built a very balanced team. Best defensive team in the draft, no doubt about that.
I disagree regarding Draymond, I'll just paste my post defending his shooting ability here:
Quote
I suggest you take a closer look at Draymond's work in 2016 - he was a legitimate three point threat who burnt teams when they sagged off of him (he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game and came up huge in the playoffs against non-OKC teams when he didn't need to bang with 2-3 bigs all by himself: he averaged 38.9 on 3.6 attempts in 5 games against Houston, 43.3% on 6 attempts in 5 games against Portland and 40.6% on 5.3 attempts in 7 games against Cleveland). It wasn't like it was a one-season wonder as well - he shot 34.4% from 3 on 3.6 attempts per game from 2015-2017 in the RS and averaged the same percentage on 4.4 attempts per game in the same span in the playoffs. This is clearly at least a slightly above league average shooter on high volume (remember that bigs weren't shooting 5, 6, 7+ threes until the last season or two) and he really has the look of a strong big man floor spacer in 2016. The claim that he was shooting them with no one around him is simply false: a quick look at the tape would show that he was used as a pop big and was a real target for kickouts before his decline. Teams respected his jumpshot well enough that some would have a big stuck onto him and close out on him quickly in defensive rotations, giving Draymond the spacing effect that stretch bigs had on offence
But it is a one year fluke in otherwise poor to mediocre shooting career.  That is like someone claiming Magic Johnson was a really good shooter because he had that one year late in his career where he shot 38.4% on 3.5 attempts even though the two surrounding seasons were 31.4 and 32.0 and he never really showed shooting touch earlier. 

People aren't just going to look at Draymond and call him anything other than a poor shooter, because that is what he was.  And I get that we are using only one season, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to think about the other seasons when they think of who the player was.
The spirit of the game is that the season picked is important because players have up and down years and years with injury. Take a guy like Grant Hill. Which year you select makes a massive difference. Most remember the player he was most of his career because he was pretty good, but he was special before the injury.

Magic and Draymond had a season or two where they shot the three at a good rate. You select that year and though they weren't noted to be good outside shooters, they were in those seasons and that should be how they are judged.

Of course, you can't force people to not consider a player's entire career, but the original concept of choosing one year was that the way the player performed in that season mattered. And so, if they had a career year in shooting, or rebounding, or scoring that is how the player should be perceived.

You can't make people judge things in that manner, but that is the way the game was designed. And if people aren't going to judge it that way, what's the sense of picking a year.
Personally speaking, I rarely look which season gets selected for each player. Obviously, Grant Hill is an exception. Most of the times, I just assume that all players are in their prime.

At the end of the day, fit matters. Draymond was shooting 38% from 3 next to Steph and Klay. None of the players in Somebody's team can replicate what Steph and Klay were doing for the Warriors that season.

For instance, the Bulls have 2 of the greatest shooters of all time in their backcourt: Mark Price and Drazen Petrovic. If Draymond had been drafted by the Bulls, we would be having a way different discussion. I could definitely buy the argument that he would have been a 38% shooter next to Price and Drazen.
Klay wasn't really creating a ton for Draymond though, sure he had off-ball gravity but it opened up easy layups for Green rather than open threes. Curry definitely created loads for Draymond, but is it really difficult for say Jimmy Butler, Bob Dandridge or Gus Williams (heck throw in Terry Porter as well, he isn't as good as those guys on the ball but his driving drew a healthy amount of fouls in the playoffs, it clearly strained defences) to draw multiple defenders off penetration in isolation or the PnP/PnR? I think it's fair to say that our off-ball movement wouldn't be as potent as Golden State, but Draymond's threes were mostly created by on-ball work drawing defenders inside rather than off-ball tethering.
Klay is an off-ball specialist. He opens up the court for all kinds of opportunities. You said it yourself: ''he had off-ball gravity''.

My point is that the Warriors situation was literally the perfect situation for Draymond. If it weren't for Steph and Klay, I don't think he would have been shooting 38.8% from 3. Obviously, you don't have Steph and Klay, hence I don't think he would have been shooting 38.8% from 3 in your team.
And that off-ball gravity drew other players chasing him on the perimeter so Draymond could dive inside, not pop outside for threes (not saying that Klay didn't create open threes for Draymond, but a good amount of looks he created for Draymond were opportunities to dive into the paint).

Your point isn't quite valid when that perfect situation enhanced his inside game more than his shooting, again Klay wasn't creating a lot of threes for Draymond and Curry got Draymond open threes with his on-ball work by drawing defenders into the paint - there's no reason to think that Butler couldn't create the three point looks that Klay got for Draymond with his cutting (Butler is an elite cutter who genuinely could stress defences consistently with timely cuts and get off-ball screen setters open) and Butler/Gus/Dandridge/Porter to somewhat replicate Curry's on-ball work by committee in terms of creation. It's a bit unorthodox, but there have been great offences built around this off-ball + passing heavy, egalitarian offence: the 2004 Kings and early 2010s Spurs were fantastic offences who created quality looks for their players with this philosophy.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2020, 10:49:28 PM by Somebody »
Jaylen for All-NBA

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #875 on: December 06, 2020, 01:01:29 AM »

Online Moranis

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24175
  • Tommy Points: 1165
Can't post in the ''How Does My Team Look'' thread. Is it locked? Anyway, I'm posting here.

@mods
Feel free to move the post to the other thread.


Quote from: Somebody
Seeking for opinions about my squad, or advice on what type of players should I get to improve it.
I've never watched Dandridge, Porter and Gus Williams play. I started following the NBA in the mid/late 90s, but I was just a little kid at the time. That being said, I read your previous post carefully. Your comps for Dandridge and Porter are intriguing to say the least: Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups. Wow!

If your comps are indicative of their skill set, then you got one of the best teams in the draft.

PG: Billups
SG: Butler
SF: Pierce
PF: Draymond
C: Gobert

I'm with Rody regarding Draymond's shooting. Sure, he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game that season, but that's just 1 season. His career average is 31.9% from 3 on 2.8 attempts per game. Can't take the 38.8 number at face value, much less given that he was playing next to Steph and Klay. He got tons of wide open looks next to them.

All in all, I believe you have built a very balanced team. Best defensive team in the draft, no doubt about that.
I disagree regarding Draymond, I'll just paste my post defending his shooting ability here:
Quote
I suggest you take a closer look at Draymond's work in 2016 - he was a legitimate three point threat who burnt teams when they sagged off of him (he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game and came up huge in the playoffs against non-OKC teams when he didn't need to bang with 2-3 bigs all by himself: he averaged 38.9 on 3.6 attempts in 5 games against Houston, 43.3% on 6 attempts in 5 games against Portland and 40.6% on 5.3 attempts in 7 games against Cleveland). It wasn't like it was a one-season wonder as well - he shot 34.4% from 3 on 3.6 attempts per game from 2015-2017 in the RS and averaged the same percentage on 4.4 attempts per game in the same span in the playoffs. This is clearly at least a slightly above league average shooter on high volume (remember that bigs weren't shooting 5, 6, 7+ threes until the last season or two) and he really has the look of a strong big man floor spacer in 2016. The claim that he was shooting them with no one around him is simply false: a quick look at the tape would show that he was used as a pop big and was a real target for kickouts before his decline. Teams respected his jumpshot well enough that some would have a big stuck onto him and close out on him quickly in defensive rotations, giving Draymond the spacing effect that stretch bigs had on offence
But it is a one year fluke in otherwise poor to mediocre shooting career.  That is like someone claiming Magic Johnson was a really good shooter because he had that one year late in his career where he shot 38.4% on 3.5 attempts even though the two surrounding seasons were 31.4 and 32.0 and he never really showed shooting touch earlier. 

People aren't just going to look at Draymond and call him anything other than a poor shooter, because that is what he was.  And I get that we are using only one season, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to think about the other seasons when they think of who the player was.
The spirit of the game is that the season picked is important because players have up and down years and years with injury. Take a guy like Grant Hill. Which year you select makes a massive difference. Most remember the player he was most of his career because he was pretty good, but he was special before the injury.

Magic and Draymond had a season or two where they shot the three at a good rate. You select that year and though they weren't noted to be good outside shooters, they were in those seasons and that should be how they are judged.

Of course, you can't force people to not consider a player's entire career, but the original concept of choosing one year was that the way the player performed in that season mattered. And so, if they had a career year in shooting, or rebounding, or scoring that is how the player should be perceived.

You can't make people judge things in that manner, but that is the way the game was designed. And if people aren't going to judge it that way, what's the sense of picking a year.
It isn't that the season picked doesn't matter, id absolutely does, but for me it is more that the season picked isn't going to fundamentally change how I view a player, especially if that season seems out of place for the totality of the career.  I mean Rodman had a season where he shot 31.7% from 3 on 1.2 attempts a game (and teams only averaged 7.6 attempts and 33.1% that year so Rodman wasn't much below average).  You will never be able to convince me that Rodman will keep anyone honest from deep, even if you picked that season where he wasn't terrible.
Then there is no sense in picking seasons. If you pick a season and that player shot well in that season, then that good shooting version of that player is who you get. That's the entire point of picking the season. If that doesn't count for anything, then let's just get rid of picking seasons because it means nothing.

I tend to agree more with nick.  Aberrations / career seasons should count.  Now, you might argue a player was benefitting from a system thatís not similar to what heís playing in here, but overall, if a guy was great in the year chosen, thereís no reason to think he wonít repeat the same.
I'm just of the belief that a flukey season is more a reflection of the special circumstances of that particular season and not necessarily duplicatable in this sort of setting because the player never actually duplicated in real life.  There are players that just have an amazing season, that they never were able to replicate.  Some of them may end up being drafted in here, so I don't want to talk about that much.  That said, I can think of at least 2 players that nearly doubled their career averages in ppg, rpg, and apg in one season and in that season many of those career bests were in the neighborhood of 40% better than their next best seasons (and one of those guys actually saw a decrease in minutes that season, the other played more).

Again, I'm not saying the season doesn't matter, but there has to be context and I'm not just going to assume that because Draymond Green had one excellent shooting season in a career of mediocre to poor shooting seasons, that he is automatically going to have an excellent shooting season in this just because the year selected he managed to actually shoot pretty well. 

I'm similarly, going to give a guy more of a benefit of a doubt the other way as well.  I mean if for example, you chose Lebron James' title season in Cleveland where he shot a very bad 30.9% from 3, I'd be more inclined to believe that is a fluke since he hadn't been lower than 33% in nearly a decade at that point.  Couple that with the fact that the 3 seasons before he shot 40.6, 37.9, and 35.4 and the 2 seasons after he shot 36.3 and 36.7 and it isn't difficult to conclude that his shooting that season was flukishly bad and Lebron was in fact a much better shooter than he showed. 
2021 Historical Draft - 5th Pick - Raptors
PG - Tiny Archibald 73, Don Buse 77, Terrell Brandon 96
SG - Chet Walker 67, Michael Cooper 87, Raja Bell 06
SF - Predrag "Peja" Stojakovic 04, Kiki Vandeweghe 87, Robert Covington 18
PF - Karl Malone 97, Spencer Haywood 73, David West 08
C - Ben Wallace 04, George Mikan 50, Al Jefferson 08

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #876 on: December 06, 2020, 01:32:37 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17734
  • Tommy Points: 1006
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Just a reminder that for all the remaining rounds weíre doing 2 rounds a day, as many have pined for! Should fly by given the interest everyone has displayed, which makes it very easy :)
Fire Brad

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #877 on: December 06, 2020, 01:29:50 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24175
  • Tommy Points: 1165
Just a reminder that for all the remaining rounds weíre doing 2 rounds a day, as many have pined for! Should fly by given the interest everyone has displayed, which makes it very easy :)
ugh.  that makes work far more difficult.
2021 Historical Draft - 5th Pick - Raptors
PG - Tiny Archibald 73, Don Buse 77, Terrell Brandon 96
SG - Chet Walker 67, Michael Cooper 87, Raja Bell 06
SF - Predrag "Peja" Stojakovic 04, Kiki Vandeweghe 87, Robert Covington 18
PF - Karl Malone 97, Spencer Haywood 73, David West 08
C - Ben Wallace 04, George Mikan 50, Al Jefferson 08

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #878 on: December 06, 2020, 02:52:22 PM »

Offline Darth_Yoda

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1102
  • Tommy Points: 49
Interested in moving up into the 7th round.

If anyone is willing to make a deal I am listening.
'21 Historical Draft
PG: Kyle Lowry / Mookie Blaylock / Mark Jackson
SG: Reggie Miller / Jeff Hornacek / Nick Anderson
SF: George Gervin / George McGinnis / Kyle Korver
PF: Connie Hawkins / Serge Ibaka / Josh Smith
C: Clint Capela / Bill Laimbeer / Jusuf Nurkic

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #879 on: December 07, 2020, 07:59:53 AM »

Offline Darth_Yoda

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1102
  • Tommy Points: 49
Draft day!
'21 Historical Draft
PG: Kyle Lowry / Mookie Blaylock / Mark Jackson
SG: Reggie Miller / Jeff Hornacek / Nick Anderson
SF: George Gervin / George McGinnis / Kyle Korver
PF: Connie Hawkins / Serge Ibaka / Josh Smith
C: Clint Capela / Bill Laimbeer / Jusuf Nurkic

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #880 on: December 07, 2020, 08:38:42 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42137
  • Tommy Points: 8155
Greenfaith sent me a list so that I can make his first pick for him.

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #881 on: December 07, 2020, 08:49:32 AM »

Offline Darth_Yoda

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1102
  • Tommy Points: 49
I will make my first pick in about 20 mins
'21 Historical Draft
PG: Kyle Lowry / Mookie Blaylock / Mark Jackson
SG: Reggie Miller / Jeff Hornacek / Nick Anderson
SF: George Gervin / George McGinnis / Kyle Korver
PF: Connie Hawkins / Serge Ibaka / Josh Smith
C: Clint Capela / Bill Laimbeer / Jusuf Nurkic

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #882 on: December 07, 2020, 08:51:21 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6598
  • Tommy Points: 449
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
Can't post in the ''How Does My Team Look'' thread. Is it locked? Anyway, I'm posting here.

@mods
Feel free to move the post to the other thread.


Quote from: Somebody
Seeking for opinions about my squad, or advice on what type of players should I get to improve it.
I've never watched Dandridge, Porter and Gus Williams play. I started following the NBA in the mid/late 90s, but I was just a little kid at the time. That being said, I read your previous post carefully. Your comps for Dandridge and Porter are intriguing to say the least: Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups. Wow!

If your comps are indicative of their skill set, then you got one of the best teams in the draft.

PG: Billups
SG: Butler
SF: Pierce
PF: Draymond
C: Gobert

I'm with Rody regarding Draymond's shooting. Sure, he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game that season, but that's just 1 season. His career average is 31.9% from 3 on 2.8 attempts per game. Can't take the 38.8 number at face value, much less given that he was playing next to Steph and Klay. He got tons of wide open looks next to them.

All in all, I believe you have built a very balanced team. Best defensive team in the draft, no doubt about that.
I disagree regarding Draymond, I'll just paste my post defending his shooting ability here:
Quote
I suggest you take a closer look at Draymond's work in 2016 - he was a legitimate three point threat who burnt teams when they sagged off of him (he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game and came up huge in the playoffs against non-OKC teams when he didn't need to bang with 2-3 bigs all by himself: he averaged 38.9 on 3.6 attempts in 5 games against Houston, 43.3% on 6 attempts in 5 games against Portland and 40.6% on 5.3 attempts in 7 games against Cleveland). It wasn't like it was a one-season wonder as well - he shot 34.4% from 3 on 3.6 attempts per game from 2015-2017 in the RS and averaged the same percentage on 4.4 attempts per game in the same span in the playoffs. This is clearly at least a slightly above league average shooter on high volume (remember that bigs weren't shooting 5, 6, 7+ threes until the last season or two) and he really has the look of a strong big man floor spacer in 2016. The claim that he was shooting them with no one around him is simply false: a quick look at the tape would show that he was used as a pop big and was a real target for kickouts before his decline. Teams respected his jumpshot well enough that some would have a big stuck onto him and close out on him quickly in defensive rotations, giving Draymond the spacing effect that stretch bigs had on offence
But it is a one year fluke in otherwise poor to mediocre shooting career.  That is like someone claiming Magic Johnson was a really good shooter because he had that one year late in his career where he shot 38.4% on 3.5 attempts even though the two surrounding seasons were 31.4 and 32.0 and he never really showed shooting touch earlier. 

People aren't just going to look at Draymond and call him anything other than a poor shooter, because that is what he was.  And I get that we are using only one season, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to think about the other seasons when they think of who the player was.
The spirit of the game is that the season picked is important because players have up and down years and years with injury. Take a guy like Grant Hill. Which year you select makes a massive difference. Most remember the player he was most of his career because he was pretty good, but he was special before the injury.

Magic and Draymond had a season or two where they shot the three at a good rate. You select that year and though they weren't noted to be good outside shooters, they were in those seasons and that should be how they are judged.

Of course, you can't force people to not consider a player's entire career, but the original concept of choosing one year was that the way the player performed in that season mattered. And so, if they had a career year in shooting, or rebounding, or scoring that is how the player should be perceived.

You can't make people judge things in that manner, but that is the way the game was designed. And if people aren't going to judge it that way, what's the sense of picking a year.
It isn't that the season picked doesn't matter, id absolutely does, but for me it is more that the season picked isn't going to fundamentally change how I view a player, especially if that season seems out of place for the totality of the career.  I mean Rodman had a season where he shot 31.7% from 3 on 1.2 attempts a game (and teams only averaged 7.6 attempts and 33.1% that year so Rodman wasn't much below average).  You will never be able to convince me that Rodman will keep anyone honest from deep, even if you picked that season where he wasn't terrible.
Then there is no sense in picking seasons. If you pick a season and that player shot well in that season, then that good shooting version of that player is who you get. That's the entire point of picking the season. If that doesn't count for anything, then let's just get rid of picking seasons because it means nothing.

I tend to agree more with nick.  Aberrations / career seasons should count.  Now, you might argue a player was benefitting from a system thatís not similar to what heís playing in here, but overall, if a guy was great in the year chosen, thereís no reason to think he wonít repeat the same.
I'm just of the belief that a flukey season is more a reflection of the special circumstances of that particular season and not necessarily duplicatable in this sort of setting because the player never actually duplicated in real life.  There are players that just have an amazing season, that they never were able to replicate.  Some of them may end up being drafted in here, so I don't want to talk about that much.  That said, I can think of at least 2 players that nearly doubled their career averages in ppg, rpg, and apg in one season and in that season many of those career bests were in the neighborhood of 40% better than their next best seasons (and one of those guys actually saw a decrease in minutes that season, the other played more).

Again, I'm not saying the season doesn't matter, but there has to be context and I'm not just going to assume that because Draymond Green had one excellent shooting season in a career of mediocre to poor shooting seasons, that he is automatically going to have an excellent shooting season in this just because the year selected he managed to actually shoot pretty well. 

I'm similarly, going to give a guy more of a benefit of a doubt the other way as well.  I mean if for example, you chose Lebron James' title season in Cleveland where he shot a very bad 30.9% from 3, I'd be more inclined to believe that is a fluke since he hadn't been lower than 33% in nearly a decade at that point.  Couple that with the fact that the 3 seasons before he shot 40.6, 37.9, and 35.4 and the 2 seasons after he shot 36.3 and 36.7 and it isn't difficult to conclude that his shooting that season was flukishly bad and Lebron was in fact a much better shooter than he showed.
No one ever said that Draymond was an excellent shooter though, we're scoffing at your opinion that Draymond was a poor shooter at his very best. A three year span of shooting 34.4% on 3-4 attempts per game over a three year span in both the regular season and playoffs (especially when all 3 of those playoff runs were trips to the finals) is strong evidence of a player being a pretty good shooter, especially for a big - Al Horford is considered as an excellent big man shooter and he averaged ~37% from 2015-2018 on a similar number of attempts per game. Obviously the 3% difference is significant, but it's not enough for the worse shooter to be poor or mediocre while the better shooter is excellent. But hey let's go with your narratives over the eye test and data because everything that disagrees with them are wrong, they're all lying about who Draymond was in his 3 year offensive peak amirite :laugh:.
Jaylen for All-NBA

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #883 on: December 07, 2020, 09:00:32 AM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2604
  • Tommy Points: 271
Can't post in the ''How Does My Team Look'' thread. Is it locked? Anyway, I'm posting here.

@mods
Feel free to move the post to the other thread.


Quote from: Somebody
Seeking for opinions about my squad, or advice on what type of players should I get to improve it.
I've never watched Dandridge, Porter and Gus Williams play. I started following the NBA in the mid/late 90s, but I was just a little kid at the time. That being said, I read your previous post carefully. Your comps for Dandridge and Porter are intriguing to say the least: Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups. Wow!

If your comps are indicative of their skill set, then you got one of the best teams in the draft.

PG: Billups
SG: Butler
SF: Pierce
PF: Draymond
C: Gobert

I'm with Rody regarding Draymond's shooting. Sure, he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game that season, but that's just 1 season. His career average is 31.9% from 3 on 2.8 attempts per game. Can't take the 38.8 number at face value, much less given that he was playing next to Steph and Klay. He got tons of wide open looks next to them.

All in all, I believe you have built a very balanced team. Best defensive team in the draft, no doubt about that.
I disagree regarding Draymond, I'll just paste my post defending his shooting ability here:
Quote
I suggest you take a closer look at Draymond's work in 2016 - he was a legitimate three point threat who burnt teams when they sagged off of him (he shot 38.8% from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game and came up huge in the playoffs against non-OKC teams when he didn't need to bang with 2-3 bigs all by himself: he averaged 38.9 on 3.6 attempts in 5 games against Houston, 43.3% on 6 attempts in 5 games against Portland and 40.6% on 5.3 attempts in 7 games against Cleveland). It wasn't like it was a one-season wonder as well - he shot 34.4% from 3 on 3.6 attempts per game from 2015-2017 in the RS and averaged the same percentage on 4.4 attempts per game in the same span in the playoffs. This is clearly at least a slightly above league average shooter on high volume (remember that bigs weren't shooting 5, 6, 7+ threes until the last season or two) and he really has the look of a strong big man floor spacer in 2016. The claim that he was shooting them with no one around him is simply false: a quick look at the tape would show that he was used as a pop big and was a real target for kickouts before his decline. Teams respected his jumpshot well enough that some would have a big stuck onto him and close out on him quickly in defensive rotations, giving Draymond the spacing effect that stretch bigs had on offence
But it is a one year fluke in otherwise poor to mediocre shooting career.  That is like someone claiming Magic Johnson was a really good shooter because he had that one year late in his career where he shot 38.4% on 3.5 attempts even though the two surrounding seasons were 31.4 and 32.0 and he never really showed shooting touch earlier. 

People aren't just going to look at Draymond and call him anything other than a poor shooter, because that is what he was.  And I get that we are using only one season, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to think about the other seasons when they think of who the player was.
The spirit of the game is that the season picked is important because players have up and down years and years with injury. Take a guy like Grant Hill. Which year you select makes a massive difference. Most remember the player he was most of his career because he was pretty good, but he was special before the injury.

Magic and Draymond had a season or two where they shot the three at a good rate. You select that year and though they weren't noted to be good outside shooters, they were in those seasons and that should be how they are judged.

Of course, you can't force people to not consider a player's entire career, but the original concept of choosing one year was that the way the player performed in that season mattered. And so, if they had a career year in shooting, or rebounding, or scoring that is how the player should be perceived.

You can't make people judge things in that manner, but that is the way the game was designed. And if people aren't going to judge it that way, what's the sense of picking a year.
It isn't that the season picked doesn't matter, id absolutely does, but for me it is more that the season picked isn't going to fundamentally change how I view a player, especially if that season seems out of place for the totality of the career.  I mean Rodman had a season where he shot 31.7% from 3 on 1.2 attempts a game (and teams only averaged 7.6 attempts and 33.1% that year so Rodman wasn't much below average).  You will never be able to convince me that Rodman will keep anyone honest from deep, even if you picked that season where he wasn't terrible.
Then there is no sense in picking seasons. If you pick a season and that player shot well in that season, then that good shooting version of that player is who you get. That's the entire point of picking the season. If that doesn't count for anything, then let's just get rid of picking seasons because it means nothing.

I tend to agree more with nick.  Aberrations / career seasons should count.  Now, you might argue a player was benefitting from a system thatís not similar to what heís playing in here, but overall, if a guy was great in the year chosen, thereís no reason to think he wonít repeat the same.
I'm just of the belief that a flukey season is more a reflection of the special circumstances of that particular season and not necessarily duplicatable in this sort of setting because the player never actually duplicated in real life.  There are players that just have an amazing season, that they never were able to replicate.  Some of them may end up being drafted in here, so I don't want to talk about that much.  That said, I can think of at least 2 players that nearly doubled their career averages in ppg, rpg, and apg in one season and in that season many of those career bests were in the neighborhood of 40% better than their next best seasons (and one of those guys actually saw a decrease in minutes that season, the other played more).

Again, I'm not saying the season doesn't matter, but there has to be context and I'm not just going to assume that because Draymond Green had one excellent shooting season in a career of mediocre to poor shooting seasons, that he is automatically going to have an excellent shooting season in this just because the year selected he managed to actually shoot pretty well. 

I'm similarly, going to give a guy more of a benefit of a doubt the other way as well.  I mean if for example, you chose Lebron James' title season in Cleveland where he shot a very bad 30.9% from 3, I'd be more inclined to believe that is a fluke since he hadn't been lower than 33% in nearly a decade at that point.  Couple that with the fact that the 3 seasons before he shot 40.6, 37.9, and 35.4 and the 2 seasons after he shot 36.3 and 36.7 and it isn't difficult to conclude that his shooting that season was flukishly bad and Lebron was in fact a much better shooter than he showed.
No one ever said that Draymond was an excellent shooter though, we're scoffing at your opinion that Draymond was a poor shooter at his very best. A three year span of shooting 34.4% on 3-4 attempts per game over a three year span in both the regular season and playoffs (especially when all 3 of those playoff runs were trips to the finals) is strong evidence of a player being a pretty good shooter, especially for a big - Al Horford is considered as an excellent big man shooter and he averaged ~37% from 2015-2018 on a similar number of attempts per game. Obviously the 3% difference is significant, but it's not enough for the worse shooter to be poor or mediocre while the better shooter is excellent. But hey let's go with your narratives over the eye test and data because everything that disagrees with them are wrong, they're all lying about who Draymond was in his 3 year offensive peak amirite :laugh:.
Well, 34.4% is barely above average in my book.

The league average for the 2019/20 season was 35.8%. (it's probably an inflated number cause bad shooters take way less shots that elite shooters)
« Last Edit: December 07, 2020, 09:15:24 AM by Jvalin »

Re: Celticsstrong 2021 Historical Draft
« Reply #884 on: December 07, 2020, 09:20:58 AM »

Offline Darth_Yoda

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1102
  • Tommy Points: 49
Pick 51
Spurs are going with a defensive floor spacer that either allows team to play small ball
with this guy manning the center position or go bully ball with this guy playing PF


Led the league in blocks multiple times
stellar defender
Very good floor spacer
Toughness rating over 9000
with pick 50 the Spurs select Air Congo,



Serge Ibaka
'21 Historical Draft
PG: Kyle Lowry / Mookie Blaylock / Mark Jackson
SG: Reggie Miller / Jeff Hornacek / Nick Anderson
SF: George Gervin / George McGinnis / Kyle Korver
PF: Connie Hawkins / Serge Ibaka / Josh Smith
C: Clint Capela / Bill Laimbeer / Jusuf Nurkic