2021 Historical Draft: How Does My Team Look?

[Roy H.]

Owner, Jerry Colangelo, justified the trade saying, “It takes a team concept of play to win in this league. Although Charlie Scott is a talent, our decision was made on the basis that Scott’s talents were of an individual nature and did not fit into a team style of play.”

Context = talking about trading the 5 time (ABA/NBA) All-Star Scott (25ppg 5apg 4rpg in 3 years with Suns) for the semi-proven bench player Paul Westphal (20mpg 10ppg 3apg 2rpg).

The reasoning above in the quote is what I was trying to get at with Scott in my previous post.

Well, no shame in being traded for Westphal.

And, I can’t speak to his role under Colangelo, but upon being traded to the Celts he immediately blended in.  He took fewer shots, deferred to his teammates, and won a title as an 82 game starter in 1976.

[Who]

Owner, Jerry Colangelo, justified the trade saying, “It takes a team concept of play to win in this league. Although Charlie Scott is a talent, our decision was made on the basis that Scott’s talents were of an individual nature and did not fit into a team style of play.”

Context = talking about trading the 5 time (ABA/NBA) All-Star Scott (25ppg 5apg 4rpg in 3 years with Suns) for the semi-proven bench player Paul Westphal (20mpg 10ppg 3apg 2rpg).

The reasoning above in the quote is what I was trying to get at with Scott in my previous post.

Well, no shame in being traded for Westphal.

And, I can’t speak to his role under Colangelo, but upon being traded to the Celts he immediately blended in.  He took fewer shots, deferred to his teammates, and won a title as an 82 game starter in 1976.

Was Scott a driving force in that success? Or just a passenger along for the ride?

Was he influencing games in a major way the likes of which you would expect from a 25-5-4 player? Or even a 17-4-4 player? Or was his impact less than his stats?

Cowens, Havlicek, Jo Jo White, Silas. They were all more important to the team's success. So at best Scott is the 5th best player on that team.

And Scott performed even worse in the playoffs. His TS% down to 44% on 15ppg. Not unexpected for a player with bad shot selection and decision making to see a decrease in efficiency when facing top opponents / defenses of the playoffs. Remember, scoring his best talent.

Just how important was Scott to that success? Yes, he played a role but how much a role?

How much team success did Scott have after that in Boston or elsewhere? How much did he have before that in Phoenix? Is he the player that is driving the success? Or is he a player putting up big numbers without effecting W-Ls?

[Roy H.]

Owner, Jerry Colangelo, justified the trade saying, “It takes a team concept of play to win in this league. Although Charlie Scott is a talent, our decision was made on the basis that Scott’s talents were of an individual nature and did not fit into a team style of play.”

Context = talking about trading the 5 time (ABA/NBA) All-Star Scott (25ppg 5apg 4rpg in 3 years with Suns) for the semi-proven bench player Paul Westphal (20mpg 10ppg 3apg 2rpg).

The reasoning above in the quote is what I was trying to get at with Scott in my previous post.

Well, no shame in being traded for Westphal.

And, I can’t speak to his role under Colangelo, but upon being traded to the Celts he immediately blended in.  He took fewer shots, deferred to his teammates, and won a title as an 82 game starter in 1976.

Was Scott a driving force in that success? Or just a passenger along for the ride?

Was he influencing games in a major way the likes of which you would expect from a 25-5-4 player? Or even a 17-4-4 player? Or was his impact less than his stats?

Cowens, Havlicek, Jo Jo White, Silas. They were all more important to the team's success. So at best Scott is the 5th best player on that team.

And Scott performed even worse in the playoffs. His TS% down to 44% on 15ppg. Not unexpected for a player with bad shot selection and decision making to see a decrease in efficiency when facing top opponents / defenses of the playoffs. Remember, scoring his best talent.

Just how important was Scott to that success? Yes, he played a role but how much a role?

How much team success did Scott have after that in Boston or elsewhere? How much did he have before that in Phoenix? Is he the player that is driving the success? Or is he a player putting up big numbers without effecting W-Ls?

I think you’re being way too hard on him.  He was on two Final Four teams, won a gold medal, lead multiple seasons where he was top-10 in scoring and assists, and was the third leading scorer on a championship team.

In Game 6 of the NBA Finals — the series clincher — he put up 25 / 11 / 3 with 5 steals.  He was a big part of that title team.

Following that title, Red had one of his worst off-seasons, acquiring Wicks and Rowe.  That tanked the team.

[Jvalin]

Going over the screen isn't as easy as it sounds though, you'll have to fight through a 7 foot wall and still be a step or two slow if not outright unable to follow the ballhandler if the big sets a really mean screen. Obviously there aren't a ton of perimeter players who can pull up from three efficiently on high volume, but these guys exist and will likely give your defence quite a bit of trouble.

Sorry, just saw this.

All defensive schemes have their pros and cons.

Switching - Cons
1. Opposing bigs rolling to the basket are defended by guards. This is a massive mismatch in favour of the opponent. Luckily for the C's, we got Smart and Brown (2 switchable guard defenders)!
2. Your big man plays D on the perimeter which means that he ain't under the basket to fight for rebounds and/or protect the rim.
--> Your guards may be fighting for rebounds against the opposing big men.
--> Opposing slashers may not face your big men when attacking the basket.


Going under the pick - Cons
Just one problem, but it's a big one. The opposing ball handler can shoot a wide open 3 pointer.

Going over the pick - Cons
All the things you said. You also risk conceding a mid range jumper, but that's hardly a problem. Mid range jumpers are hands down the least efficient shots in basketball.

Long story short, there's no perfect defensive scheme.

McGinnis hit 35% of his 3pointers in the ABA 92 per game) prior coming into the NBA. The NBA had no 3pt line. McGinnis' shot was ugly, but highly effective.

His career average from 3 is 27.3%. One ABA season at 35.4% ain't enough for a guy to be considered an above average 3pt shooter. Chances are, most of these shots were wide open shots as well.

His career average from the free throw line is 66.4% on 7.4 attempts per game. If he were a good shooter, I assume he would have been a better shooter from the free throw line.

[Roy H.]

  One ABA season at 35.4% ain't enough for a guy to be considered an above average 3pt shooter. Chances are, most of these shots were wide open shots as well.

He was 4th in the ABA in 3PT%, second in makes and third in attempts.  I think it’s fair to project that he would have been a pretty good outside shooter if he was adjusting to the modern game.

I mean, take Larry Bird.  He averaged fewer than two 3PAs per game for his career.  Is that how he should be valued in leagues like these?

[Jvalin]

  One ABA season at 35.4% ain't enough for a guy to be considered an above average 3pt shooter. Chances are, most of these shots were wide open shots as well.

He was 4th in the ABA in 3PT%, second in makes and third in attempts.  I think it’s fair to project that he would have been a pretty good outside shooter if he was adjusting to the modern game.

I mean, take Larry Bird.  He averaged fewer than two 3PAs per game for his career.  Is that how he should be valued in leagues like these?

Again, the guy was a 66.4% career free throw shooter. FT% is indicative of shooting potential. Not to mention, he had a weird one-handed jump shot.

If you ask me, none of these things matter. We had the exact same convo yesterday. Even if he could become an above average 3pt shooter in today's game, that's irrelevant. We are selecting specific seasons. This means we gotta take into account his shooting % and shooting volume from that season. At least this is how I see it. Otherwise, what's the point in selecting specific seasons?

Larry was an elite 3pt shooter pretty much throughout his career. He had 3 seasons shooting 3+ threes per game. He led the league in FT% 4 times in his career. He has no place in this conversation.

[Who]

McGinnis hit 35% of his 3pointers in the ABA 92 per game) prior coming into the NBA. The NBA had no 3pt line. McGinnis' shot was ugly, but highly effective.

His career average from 3 is 27.3%. One ABA season at 35.4% ain't enough for a guy to be considered an above average 3pt shooter. Chances are, most of these shots were wide open shots as well.

His career average from the free throw line is 66.4% on 7.4 attempts per game. If he were a good shooter, I assume he would have been a better shooter from the free throw line.

McGinnis was an Antoine Walker style shooter. Volume shooter low efficiency. Bad shot selection.

Same as Toine - you are always hoping McGinnis spends more time and energy down in the paint or near the paint where he is more effective than settling for jump-shots far from the basket where he is less efficient. Use that incredible body of his. That LeBron-esque physique, power and quickness.

[Roy H.]

  One ABA season at 35.4% ain't enough for a guy to be considered an above average 3pt shooter. Chances are, most of these shots were wide open shots as well.

He was 4th in the ABA in 3PT%, second in makes and third in attempts.  I think it’s fair to project that he would have been a pretty good outside shooter if he was adjusting to the modern game.

I mean, take Larry Bird.  He averaged fewer than two 3PAs per game for his career.  Is that how he should be valued in leagues like these?

Again, the guy was a 66.4% career free throw shooter. FT% is indicative of shooting potential. Not to mention, he had a weird one-handed jump shot.

If you ask me, none of these things matter. We had the exact same convo yesterday. Even if he could become an above average 3pt shooter in today's game, that's irrelevant. We are selecting specific seasons. This means we gotta take into account his shooting % and shooting volume from that season. At least this is how I see it. Otherwise, what's the point in selecting specific seasons?

We’ve been doing these drafts for what, a decade?  The standard has always been that historic players get the benefits of modern healthcare, nutrition, training, etc., and are presumed to be adapted to the modern game.

You pick specific seasons so you can take guys at their peak.  It doesn’t mean the stats don’t change.  The idea that Trevor Ariza would take 2x to 3x more 3PT shots than Larry Bird, for instance, is laughable.

[gouki88]

Owner, Jerry Colangelo, justified the trade saying, “It takes a team concept of play to win in this league. Although Charlie Scott is a talent, our decision was made on the basis that Scott’s talents were of an individual nature and did not fit into a team style of play.”

Context = talking about trading the 5 time (ABA/NBA) All-Star Scott (25ppg 5apg 4rpg in 3 years with Suns) for the semi-proven bench player Paul Westphal (20mpg 10ppg 3apg 2rpg).

The reasoning above in the quote is what I was trying to get at with Scott in my previous post.

I think it’s funny that you bring up that quote from Colangelo. Scott immediately won a title in Boston upon arrival, whereas Phoenix did not. I think Colangelo here is blaming Scott for many of his moves. He was repeatedly trading guys away for draft capital, and Scott was relied upon to do it all.
I also don’t blame Scott for drafting Corky Calhoun over Julius Erving or Paul Westphal. Or trading away the pick that became Eddie Johnson for Bob Christian.

There were heaps of moves Colangelo made that were not conducive to winning until he struck gold with Westphal. Doubt he is willing to hear things like that said about him.

In many regards, Charlie Scott reminds me of Paul Pierce. Showed immense individual talent, and battled away in garbage situations that were of no doing of his own, only to lock in for a title immediately after joining forces with equal (Silas & Jo Jo) or better (Hondo & Cowens) players. That’s why I rate Scott highly - he was an elite talent who deferred when there were better players alongside him. Issue is, Colangelo failed to put those guys there.

[nickagneta]

McGinnis, to me, was always one of these guys that if you watched him in highlights and looked at stats, that he would be leading teams to titles. But when you watched him, you saw he wasn't being as dominant as you thought and maybe didn't affect winning as much as you would think.

Of course, it's tough to judge some of these 70's players. Who knows who was doing what when and how it affected their play.

[gouki88]

McGinnis, to me, was always one of these guys that if you watched him in highlights and looked at stats, that he would be leading teams to titles. But when you watched him, you saw he wasn't being as dominant as you thought and maybe didn't affect winning as much as you would think.

Of course, it's tough to judge some of these 70's players. Who knows who was doing what when and how it affected their play.

Ha, yeah, good point. The inconsistencies of many 70’s players were probably ... chemically exaggerated 

[Who]

Sorry, I keep forgetting to post the years:

Chicago Bulls
PG: Mark Price 89-90 / Gilbert Arenas 05-06 / Norm Nixon 81-82
SG: Drazen Petrovic 92-93 / Jim Paxson 82-83 / Randy Smith 75-76
SF: Julius Erving 79-80 / Josh Howard 06-07 / Nic Batum 13-14
PF: Shawn Kemp 95-96 / Larry Nance 88-89 / Diaw 08-09
C: Vlade Divac 94-95 / Jermaine O'Neal 03-04 / Kevin Willis 91-92

[Who]

Chicago Bulls
G: Mark Price, Gilbert Arenas
G: Drazen Petrovic, Jim Paxson
F: Julius Erving, Josh Howard
F: Shawn Kemp, Larry Nance
C: Vlade Divac, Jermaine O'Neal
Norm Nixon, Randy Smith, Batum, Diaw, Kevin Willis

I will speak a bit about the team. What I was trying to do.

So our halfcourt offense revolves around guards. In Mark Price & Drazen Petrovic I believe I have the most explosive highly efficient backcourt in the league. Both players are regarded among the best shooters of All Time. Price was a 50-40-90 player. Drazen just missed it at 87% FT% along with 52% FG% and 45% 3PT%. Mark Price is also one of the best PnR guards ever. Price was used both as an on-ball creator and an off-ball weapon running off screens for catch and shoot opportunities.

Both Price and Drazen would benefit greatly for being transported from the late 80s early 90s to today's league. Their outside bombing would not be freed but encouraged. Making them two of the most efficient & prolific 3 point shooters in this league. Both players would also benefit greatly from the change in the hand-checking laws - Price in particular. No longer can bigger more physical players beat him up. Nash went from a 3rd team All-NBAer to a two time MVP thanks to the rule changes. Price too would see a major leap in his effectiveness. Price added highly creative passing along with strong decision making to round out his offensive arsenal as a genuine peer to Steve Nash.

The other part of my team was the creation of easy baskets. This is one of the things that stands out the most to me about Doc. He can create easy scores against any and every team he plays against - Doc gives you high value scoring opportunities that other players just do not get because they do not have his athleticism and he creates for teammates on the break too cause everyone loves to run with Doc + opponents are terrified of him. Doc was the best open court player / finisher of his era and matched only by Giannis in this Historical League. Alongside Doc I have Kemp as another excellent open court finisher with Price the maestro running the show.

In order to create space for Doc to work with in the halfcourt, I choose to pair him with big men who can shoot the ball and vacate the paint. Leaving Doc more room to drive or post up. Divac is a high post playmaker with 3 point range. Kemp had a very strong midrange game and had a good but low volume long two point shot which I believe would extend to 3 point range. With long twos, he generally only took them when he was wide open and I expect he'd do the same with 3s otherwise his efficiency dropped off. Nance took a larger amount of long twos which he was very good at. I believe he'd be a solid 3 point threat on good big man volume. Jermaine O'Neal would probably take one now and then but we really do not want him to do so. 17 feet and under is good JO.

In the past, I have been quite negative on Doc's outside shooting. Too negative I feel. Last go round, I believe it was Moranis who pointed out Doc was shooting 34-35% from 3 in the ABA on solid volume (top ten in attempts one year, just outside top ten another year - still only about 1 per game). Still, I'd much rather see him getting closer to the basket.

Off the bench I have Gilbert Arenas and Jim Paxson to maintain the explosive outside shooting / outside scoring dynamic in the backcourt. Paxson was one of the best off-ball SGs in the league at that time, a prolific scorer and deadly shooter. Arenas you all know well. Josh Howard was a highly efficient but low volume 3 point threat. I expect he'd increase volume but decrease efficiency in today's league.

I have the most dangerous offensive backcourt in the league mimicking the Steph Curry / Klay Thompson dynamic. The most athletic rim punishing forward combination in the league with Doc and Kemp. And a bunch of quality offensive threats around them to make life hard for opposing defenses.

Divac adds a further threat to the offense with his playmaking from the high post and we can and will go small often with Nance at PF alongside Kemp at C (or JO at C) to push the pace when playing against teams with non threats offensively at center. We have the guard play, speed and offensive bigs to exploit slow big men.


Defensively, not as good. The backcourt D is one of the weaker ones. We do not have a premier shot-blocker to protect the basket. Instead we play with 2-3 shot-blockers (Doc being the 3rd) on the floor at all times. Somewhat similar to Doc's early 80s Philly teams where they had multiple players jumping at everything around the basket denying opportunities. Doc was a good man defender & great team defender. Kemp was an above average defender. JO a strong defender. Nance a high level defender. Josh Howard above average. Divac was solid in real life NBA but is a weak defender compared to other starting Cs.

[GreenFaith1819]

My write-up for the 2021 Celticsstrong Historical Draft top-11 excluded Indiana Pacers:

Starters

PG - 6'3" 195 pounds Steve Nash(05-06) 18.8 pts, 10.5 assists, 4.2 rebs, 0.8 steals, 44% 3pt and 51% FG, 1st Team NBA, All-Star, Regular season MVP.



SG - 6'7" 195 pounds Reggie Lewis(91-92) 20.2 pts, 2.3 assists, 4.8 rebs, 1.5 steals, 1.3 blocks, 50% FG, All-Star.



SF - 6'6" 215 pounds Thunder Dan Marjerle (92-93) 16.9 pts, 3.8 assists, 4.7 rebs, 1.7 steals, 38% 3pt%, 46% FG, All-Star, 2nd Team Defense.



PF - 6'8" 205 pounds Dan Roundfield (79-80) 16.5 pts, 10.3 rebs, 2.3 assists, 1.2 steals, 1.7 blocks, 50% FG, 2nd team All-NBA, All-Star, 1st Team Defense, 5th in MVP Shares, 6th in Defensive Win Shares.



C - 6'11" 255 pounds Marc Gasol (16-17) 19.5 pts, 6.3 rebs, 4.6 assists, 0.9 steals, 1.3 blocks, 39% 3pt%, 46% FG, All-Star



Bench

PG - 6'3" 170 pounds PG/SG Lafayette "FAT" Lever (87-88) 18.9 pts, 7.8 assists, 8.1 rebounds, 2.7 steals, 47% FG, All-Star, 2nd Team NBA Defense, 9th in MVP Shares, 11 Triple doubles.



SG - 6'2" 185 pounds PG/SG Lloyd Bernard "World" Free (78-79), 28.8 pts, 4.4 assists, 3.9 rebs, 1.4 steals, 48% FG, 2nd Team All-NBA, 6th in MVP Shares.



SF - 6'10" 215 pounds SF/PF Rashard Lewis (08-09) 17.7 pts, 5.7 rebs, 2.6 assists, 1 steals, 40% 3pt%, 44% FG, All-Star



PF - 6'7" 257 pounds PF Paul Milsap (14-15) 16.7 pts, 7.8 rebs, 3.1 assists, 1.8 steals, 0.9 blks, 36% 3pt%, 47% FG, All-Star



C - 6'10" 240 pounds C-PF Jeff "McFilthy" Ruland (83-84) 22.2 pts, 12.3 rebs, 3.9 assists, 0.9 stl, 1.0 blocks, All-Star, 7th in Defensive Win Shares, 9th in MVP award shares



I love my roster in that it is spearheaded by one of the most aggressive attackers in NBA history in Steve Nash. His offensive game is among the best and he makes players and teams better with his team work and talent.

I recognize that with Nash - at best - his defense was average if not worse. This was NOT from lack of effort, though. I chose to surround him with big, switchable and versatile SGs / SFs in Reggie Lewis, Thunder Dan Marjerle and even Dan Roundfield I think in this format could cover many PGs (in limited stretches, of course), SGs, SFs and PFs and Centers - if we're going by Modern Day NBA standards which we are.

Steve also has a VERY capable backup PG/SG in Lafayette "Fat" Lever, Mr. Triple Double. Fat is also a slightly better defender than Nash.

Steve Nash's talent could NOT be passed over and I was happy that I could pick him first for my team.

I was happy to draft Jeff Ruland and thought he'd go a bit sooner than he did. I'm sure players saw him and perhaps passed on him due to his size and mobility but I found him to be a perfect antidote against players like Moses Malone.

Granted - in THIS format "NO ONE" is stopping Moses. But Jeff Ruland did not earn the nickname "McFilthy" for nothing and he'd be a willing banger against him for stretches - taking the pressure off of Marc.

Jeff Ruland could also score, rebound and was an excellent passer - with this I can be happy with him on the floor in place of Marc for stretches.

I'm glad that I could draft Marc Gasol and while I realize that some thought I drafted him too early (2nd Pick overall), I was certain that by the time I drafted my 3rd pick (3rd round, 9th pick) he'd be gone. Stats and talent-wise I found him to be the 2nd best Center in this draft behind Moses.

I realize some may disagree with my ranking of Marc but I rated him on TOTAL game...excellent passer, good 3pt shooter, solid defender, can play physical, good rebounder and can score in numerous ways. I also realize that he was not the fastest of Bigs but his intelligence of the game mitigates that some.

I can run the offense through Marc at times and he'd take some pressure off of Nash in that regard.

I chose the latter years Marc for his 3pt shooting and found that - while he wasn't a GREAT 3pt shooter he'd help keep defenses honest enough by drawing opposing Bigs out of the paint and create easier opportunities for his teammates like he did in MEM and TOR.

I also think for the year I chose for Marc it would allow him to be a physical presence (in stretches) against the more physical players in the post (Moses). While I wouldn't subject Marc to a full-game of Moses I think he could hold his own for stretches - until I brought in Jeff Ruland.

I realize that some may be curious with my selections at starting SG and SF and one player suggested that I move Marjerle to SG and move Reggie to SF. I think both are switchable on offense and defense but I think Dan offered more facilitation with his passing than Reggie - while not giving up much defensively.

Reggie would hold his own offensively and defensively and once blocked FOUR of Michael Jordan's shots in one game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7t4swtdYw

He was 2nd leading scorer in that game (25), behind Larry.

I get that the game against CHI was a bit of an aberration defensively, but he'd do well overall in today's game and I'm sure his 3pt shooting would translate to the modern game. He would be able to cover PGs, SGs, SFs and some PFs in today's game.

I can run several options with my lineup if needed -

I can go all-offense

PG-Nash or Fat Lever
SG- World B. Free
SF- Reggie Lewis / Dan Marjerle / Jalen Rose
PF - Rashard Lewis
C - Marc Gasol

Defense -

PG - Fat Lever
SG - Tony Allen
SF - Reggie Lewis / Dan Marjerle
PF - Roundfield (Small Ball, some PFs) or Milsap (Bigger PFs and some Centers)
C- Marc Gasol or Jeff Ruland (against bigger physical players), Theo Ratliff (athletic quicker Big for some small-ball lineups...I believe he'd be an excellent weakside help defender as well).

Thank you for reading and open for comments/suggestions.

[Moranis]

I've discussed my team quite a bit on here, but felt I probably should do a run down.

Toronto Raptors

PG - Tiny Archibald 73, Don Buse 77, Terrell Brandon 96
SG - Michael Cooper 87, Chet Walker 67, 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

The Raptors are led by the second best PF in history.  The 2nd all time leading scorer in league history (at least for another year and a half or so), 2-time MVP (7 other times finished in top 5), 11 1st Team All NBA (along with 2 2nd's and a 3rd), 3 1st Team All Defense (and a 2nd Team).  The best player and leader on a team that was basically a 50+ win team for 13 consecutive years including the 2 Finals appearances where Greg Ostertag, Bryon Russell, and Jeff Hornacek were starters (Stockton was obviously a great player as the other) and the rotation was Antoine Carr, Adam Keefe, Shandon Anderson, Chris Morris, Greg Foster, and Howard Eisley.  Think about that lineup.  That team went to back to back Finals and won that many games for that long, because Malone (and to a lesser extent Stockton) were just that good. He would make the prototypical modern PF as he was big, strong, and athletic.  He had excellent low post skills as well as great long range shooting. The first year bball-ref has shooting stats is 96-97, the year I've chosen, and Malone took 26.2% of his shots from 16' to the 3 point line and hit those at an absolutely mind boggling 53.6%. Him and Stockton destroyed teams with the pick-n-roll because Malone could absolutely kill you from anywhere and often just popped right out for an open feed from Stockton.  In the modern game, those long 2's he was hitting at over 53% would be 3 pointers.

Our next pick and 2nd best player is the only player in history to lead the league in scoring and passing in the same season.  Tiny Archibald was an absolute monster in 1973.  He could do anything with the basketball and we were happy to pair him with Malone, as we think they will be able to run the PnR to perfection with Malone in addition to being able to score in transition or the half court.  His pinpoint passing will set up the rest of the team.

Our third scorer is one of the deadliest shooters in history in Peja Stojakovic, who in 2004 shot 43.3% from 3, 51.1 from 2, and led the league at 92.7 from the line.  He was the best player on a 55 win team and finished 4th in MVP voting.

We have elected to start DPOY Michael Cooper at SG.  We think he fits better with the starting unit, providing a defensive tenacity needed on the wing.  In addition, he would be the prototypical 3 and D player today as he was a 38.5% 3 point shooter in 87 on just under 3 shots a game.  He had multiple other season at over 38% in a time when the 3 just wasn't used like it is today. 

At center, we are going with 4 time DPOY Ben Wallace.  We absolutely understand the concerns expressed by some regarding Big Ben's offensive limitations, however he is such a good rebounder and defender we think he makes up for it.  There are few players in history that could alter a game defensively like Wallace could.  And we will also remind everyone that Wallace was the best player on a championship winning team. There aren't very many of those players available in this draft that can say that.  He consistently limited Shaq and other centers that were bigger then him, which is all we need from him.  We need him to take on players like Moses while also having the versatility to defend centers like Jokic, and we think he can do both of those things.  In fact, he may be the only center that can defend every other starting center in this without the need for double teams.  That is where his strength and true advantage is.  As for the fit between Wallace and Malone on offense, I feel I need to again state that Greg Ostertag was the starting center on the best Jazz teams and before Ostertag, Felton Spencer was the starting center.  Both Ostertag and Spencer are worse offensive players than Wallace, they are also much less athletic and mobile.  We actually think Wallace's athleticism, strength, and rebounding prowess will actually make Malone better. 

We will also have a very heavy dose of Spencer Haywood playing small ball center next to Malone.  We think Haywood would do quite well as a modern center (he did play center in his only ABA season when he was the ABA MVP).  He was big and strong as a PF, and could score with the best of them going for 29.2 ppg while adding 12.9 rpg and 2.5 apg in 1973.  There will certainly be match-ups and games where Haywood plays the majority of the center minutes, there will be other times when he plays normal back-up minutes at both power forward and center.  We just like the versatility and line-up options Haywood can provide.

In addition to Haywood, we also feel that Chet Walker would start for most teams in this (and he may start for us depending on match-ups).  Walker will come in fairly early for Cooper providing some instant offense while not harming the defense much.  Walker is one of the few players in history that never missed the playoffs.  In fact, the season before and after he was traded to Chicago they missed the playoffs, but made them all 6 of his seasons there and in those 6 seasons was above his career average in ppg and apg every single season, clearly showing his stats were depressed playing as the 3rd option behind Wilt and Greer in Philly.  He was however an integral component on those Philly teams including one of the greatest teams ever in that 67 squad.

Don Buse will back up Tiny and Buse was both an excellent passer and excellent defender.  In fact, in 77 he led the league in both apg and spg (which he also did the prior year in the ABA where he shot 34.6% from 3).  He was also a plus 3 point shooter in the ABA and then later in his career in the NBA.  When we need size we will go with the best player in the world on the best team in the world for 6 year period in George Mikan.  We understand the concerns with a player that played as long ago as Mikan, but he did play against some more modern players like Schayes and he generally outperformed him.  Our back-up SF for most line-up configurations will be Kiki Vandeweghe who like Peja is a deadly shooter from deep, who will fill in for Peja when he is resting or in what purports to be an incredible 3 point shooting lineup.

The deeper bench has a mix of 3 and D players like Raja Bell and Robert Covington and more all around players like Terrell Brandon, David West, and Al Jefferson. Brandon in particular may not play much in a regular game, but if Tiny were to miss a game, Brandon would be the starter over Buse. We feel West may have been the most undervalued player in this.  He had an exceptional run in New Orleans and there will certainly be games where he plays big minutes for us.

We believe we can field what is likely the best defensive lineup any team can put other there when we go with Buse, Cooper, Covington, Malone, and Wallace or can go small with Covington at PF and Bell at SF along with Wallace, Buse, and Cooper.

We can also put together an end game offensive lineup that would be almost impossible for anyone to defend with Tiny, Walker, Peja, Malone, and Haywood.  If we need a 3 point shot, we will go with Cooper, Bell, Peja, Kiki, and Malone. 

The Raptors put together what we believe is the most versatile roster with so many elite line-up permutations to effectively play situational basketball, while still playing to the strength of its best player.  We don't think anyone in this can realistically defend Malone 1 on 1 and we think the players surrounding Malone will bring out the best in him by setting him up or providing outlets for him to pass to, because for as good as Malone is as a scorer and rebounder, he is also an excellent passer and reads the court very well.