2021 Historical Draft: How Does My Team Look?

[Moranis]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

[gouki88]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

I woo it!

[Somebody]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

Likewise, Wallace and Gobert are modern defensive titans. I get that both players aren't on the level of those guys, but these are players who had top 10-15 impact on their teams at their very best.

[Roy H.]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

Likewise, Wallace and Gobert are modern defensive titans. I get that both players aren't on the level of those guys, but these are players who had top 10-15 impact on their teams at their very best.

Let’s use Wallace, since he actually played against great centers.

H2H, Shaq put up 25 / 10 / 3 on 59% shooting.

Wallace averaged 6 / 9 / 1 on 51% shooting.

In any matchup, you’re losing the center battle big time.  On a regular team, Wallace’s teammates could pick up the slack.  Shaq’s Lakers teams were two or three deep with great players.

In a historic draft, the opponents go at least 10 deep.  Losing one matchup in the starting lineup by 20+ points is a huge deficit.

That doesn’t just apply to centers, but they’re the most visible.  A big man shooting 55% inside is still going to be the most consistent and efficient way to score points.

[Moranis]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

Likewise, Wallace and Gobert are modern defensive titans. I get that both players aren't on the level of those guys, but these are players who had top 10-15 impact on their teams at their very best.

Let’s use Wallace, since he actually played against great centers.

H2H, Shaq put up 25 / 10 / 3 on 59% shooting.

Wallace averaged 6 / 9 / 1 on 51% shooting.

In any matchup, you’re losing the center battle big time.  On a regular team, Wallace’s teammates could pick up the slack.  Shaq’s Lakers teams were two or three deep with great players.

In a historic draft, the opponents go at least 10 deep.  Losing one matchup in the starting lineup by 20+ points is a huge deficit.

That doesn’t just apply to centers, but they’re the most visible.  A big man shooting 55% inside is still going to be the most consistent and efficient way to score points.

The discrepancy wasn't as great in the 04 Finals.  Shaq was still pretty solid at 26.6/10.8, but Wallace was better at 10.8/13.6.  Shaq also turned it over nearly 3 times as much as well.  In the 05 ECF it was even closer as Shaq went for 20.6/7.6 vs. Wallace's 7.4/10.3.  Overall in the playoffs, Wallace's teams were 14-8 and he went for 8.1/10.7 vs. 21.9/9.3

Obviously Wallace is never going to outscore anyone, but significantly reducing the scoring impact of the opposing center has significant value, even in these all star team type centers because those teams are run through their big guys.  And it isn't like you need 5 scorers on the floor.  Tiny and Mailman are big time scorers and Peja was a 20+ scorer as well.  You can't just have 5 guys that need the ball to be effective.  You have to have the guys that are going to play within the system, know their role, and positively affect the output of the opposing player.  And take Memphis.  Is Mo Cheeks going to slow Tiny down.  What about AK47 on Malone.  Plus he is playing Kobe out of position at SF.  Or the Kings, is Cliff Robinson really going to hang with the Mailman.  I mean they played 49 regular season games against each other, it was over a 10+ difference favoring Malone, and in the playoffs it was over an 18 point difference.  And as much as you can like Siakam, Malone would destroy him lessoning whatever value Jokic might provide offensively over Big Ben.   

They obviously have 3 great offensive centers, but using that as a reason they have the best team without any sort of analysis just doesn't cut it.   That is why I booed the post, it provided no actual context or analysis.

[GreenFaith1819]

Regarding Centers....

All I'm going to say is that I "LOVE" Bigs who can do a plethora of things at a high level...

Rebound when needed....space the floor when needed...set tough screens when needed...PASS....run the offense through....defend at a high level.

Cough cough Marc Gasol, Jeff Ruland............

Granted these two won't win many foot races but both of them did MANY things well - especially Marc.

[Somebody]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

Likewise, Wallace and Gobert are modern defensive titans. I get that both players aren't on the level of those guys, but these are players who had top 10-15 impact on their teams at their very best.

Let’s use Wallace, since he actually played against great centers.

H2H, Shaq put up 25 / 10 / 3 on 59% shooting.

Wallace averaged 6 / 9 / 1 on 51% shooting.

In any matchup, you’re losing the center battle big time.  On a regular team, Wallace’s teammates could pick up the slack.  Shaq’s Lakers teams were two or three deep with great players.

In a historic draft, the opponents go at least 10 deep.  Losing one matchup in the starting lineup by 20+ points is a huge deficit.

That doesn’t just apply to centers, but they’re the most visible.  A big man shooting 55% inside is still going to be the most consistent and efficient way to score points.

The discrepancy wasn't as great in the 04 Finals.  Shaq was still pretty solid at 26.6/10.8, but Wallace was better at 10.8/13.6.  Shaq also turned it over nearly 3 times as much as well.  In the 05 ECF it was even closer as Shaq went for 20.6/7.6 vs. Wallace's 7.4/10.3.  Overall in the playoffs, Wallace's teams were 14-8 and he went for 8.1/10.7 vs. 21.9/9.3

Obviously Wallace is never going to outscore anyone, but significantly reducing the scoring impact of the opposing center has significant value, even in these all star team type centers because those teams are run through their big guys.  And it isn't like you need 5 scorers on the floor.  Tiny and Mailman are big time scorers and Peja was a 20+ scorer as well.  You can't just have 5 guys that need the ball to be effective.  You have to have the guys that are going to play within the system, know their role, and positively affect the output of the opposing player.  And take Memphis.  Is Mo Cheeks going to slow Tiny down.  What about AK47 on Malone.  Plus he is playing Kobe out of position at SF.  Or the Kings, is Cliff Robinson really going to hang with the Mailman.  I mean they played 49 regular season games against each other, it was over a 10+ difference favoring Malone, and in the playoffs it was over an 18 point difference.  And as much as you can like Siakam, Malone would destroy him lessoning whatever value Jokic might provide offensively over Big Ben.   

They obviously have 3 great offensive centers, but using that as a reason they have the best team without any sort of analysis just doesn't cut it.   That is why I booed the post, it provided no actual context or analysis.

^this. Shaq is still going to be a more voluminous scorer and better creator than most players in the league even with the likes of Wallace or Gobert guarding him, but both of these guys still bring massive value with their defence - they're able to chip away at the efficacy of these big man centric attacks in a way that no other centre can really replicate with spectacular man and team defence.

[Roy H.]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

Likewise, Wallace and Gobert are modern defensive titans. I get that both players aren't on the level of those guys, but these are players who had top 10-15 impact on their teams at their very best.

Let’s use Wallace, since he actually played against great centers.

H2H, Shaq put up 25 / 10 / 3 on 59% shooting.

Wallace averaged 6 / 9 / 1 on 51% shooting.

In any matchup, you’re losing the center battle big time.  On a regular team, Wallace’s teammates could pick up the slack.  Shaq’s Lakers teams were two or three deep with great players.

In a historic draft, the opponents go at least 10 deep.  Losing one matchup in the starting lineup by 20+ points is a huge deficit.

That doesn’t just apply to centers, but they’re the most visible.  A big man shooting 55% inside is still going to be the most consistent and efficient way to score points.

The discrepancy wasn't as great in the 04 Finals.  Shaq was still pretty solid at 26.6/10.8, but Wallace was better at 10.8/13.6.  Shaq also turned it over nearly 3 times as much as well.  In the 05 ECF it was even closer as Shaq went for 20.6/7.6 vs. Wallace's 7.4/10.3.  Overall in the playoffs, Wallace's teams were 14-8 and he went for 8.1/10.7 vs. 21.9/9.3

Obviously Wallace is never going to outscore anyone, but significantly reducing the scoring impact of the opposing center has significant value, even in these all star team type centers because those teams are run through their big guys.  And it isn't like you need 5 scorers on the floor.  Tiny and Mailman are big time scorers and Peja was a 20+ scorer as well.  You can't just have 5 guys that need the ball to be effective.  You have to have the guys that are going to play within the system, know their role, and positively affect the output of the opposing player.  And take Memphis.  Is Mo Cheeks going to slow Tiny down.  What about AK47 on Malone.  Plus he is playing Kobe out of position at SF.  Or the Kings, is Cliff Robinson really going to hang with the Mailman.  I mean they played 49 regular season games against each other, it was over a 10+ difference favoring Malone, and in the playoffs it was over an 18 point difference.  And as much as you can like Siakam, Malone would destroy him lessoning whatever value Jokic might provide offensively over Big Ben.   

They obviously have 3 great offensive centers, but using that as a reason they have the best team without any sort of analysis just doesn't cut it.   That is why I booed the post, it provided no actual context or analysis.

^this. Shaq is still going to be a more voluminous scorer and better creator than most players in the league even with the likes of Wallace or Gobert guarding him, but both of these guys still bring massive value with their defence - they're able to chip away at the efficacy of these big man centric attacks in a way that no other centre can really replicate with spectacular man and team defence.

It just doesn’t work that way.  Great offense is going to beat great defense.  The greatest, most efficient offense is still going to come close to the basket.

“Chipping away” at a dominant center works when he’s got only a few valves to release pressure on him.  In this game, most teams will have five scorers to relieve pressure.

And let’s talk about switching.  How many teams can effectively switch on to Moses Malone, for instance.  I’ve talked before about how these games are about who can exploit the biggest mismatch.  How many teams can effectively guard Moses?

[Roy H.]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

Likewise, Wallace and Gobert are modern defensive titans. I get that both players aren't on the level of those guys, but these are players who had top 10-15 impact on their teams at their very best.

Let’s use Wallace, since he actually played against great centers.

H2H, Shaq put up 25 / 10 / 3 on 59% shooting.

Wallace averaged 6 / 9 / 1 on 51% shooting.

In any matchup, you’re losing the center battle big time.  On a regular team, Wallace’s teammates could pick up the slack.  Shaq’s Lakers teams were two or three deep with great players.

In a historic draft, the opponents go at least 10 deep.  Losing one matchup in the starting lineup by 20+ points is a huge deficit.

That doesn’t just apply to centers, but they’re the most visible.  A big man shooting 55% inside is still going to be the most consistent and efficient way to score points.

The discrepancy wasn't as great in the 04 Finals.  Shaq was still pretty solid at 26.6/10.8, but Wallace was better at 10.8/13.6.  Shaq also turned it over nearly 3 times as much as well.  In the 05 ECF it was even closer as Shaq went for 20.6/7.6 vs. Wallace's 7.4/10.3.  Overall in the playoffs, Wallace's teams were 14-8 and he went for 8.1/10.7 vs. 21.9/9.3

Obviously Wallace is never going to outscore anyone, but significantly reducing the scoring impact of the opposing center has significant value, even in these all star team type centers because those teams are run through their big guys.  And it isn't like you need 5 scorers on the floor.  Tiny and Mailman are big time scorers and Peja was a 20+ scorer as well.  You can't just have 5 guys that need the ball to be effective.  You have to have the guys that are going to play within the system, know their role, and positively affect the output of the opposing player.  And take Memphis.  Is Mo Cheeks going to slow Tiny down.  What about AK47 on Malone.  Plus he is playing Kobe out of position at SF.  Or the Kings, is Cliff Robinson really going to hang with the Mailman.  I mean they played 49 regular season games against each other, it was over a 10+ difference favoring Malone, and in the playoffs it was over an 18 point difference.  And as much as you can like Siakam, Malone would destroy him lessoning whatever value Jokic might provide offensively over Big Ben.   

They obviously have 3 great offensive centers, but using that as a reason they have the best team without any sort of analysis just doesn't cut it.   That is why I booed the post, it provided no actual context or analysis.

I think I commented on this earlier, but I really loved your first few rounds.  After four rounds, I probably had your team at the top.  I love Karl Malone, and buy everything that you’re selling there.  To me, a foundation of Haywood / Malone / Tiny / Peja was phenomenal.  I just didn’t like your later picks enough to keep you in my personal top-three.  I think we’ve discussed this in years past, but Wallace and Milan don’t do much for me.

[Who]

And let’s talk about switching.  How many teams can effectively switch on to Moses Malone, for instance.  I’ve talked before about how these games are about who can exploit the biggest mismatch.  How many teams can effectively guard Moses?

You can't switch in this league.

The Big guys are too big & strong, too skilled. The small guys are too quick and potent offensively.

Switching is extremely difficult in this environment. Teams have 4-5 scorers on the floor at all times who can exploit mismatches.

Defenses will be more similar to the 2008 Celtics than today's switching defenses. They have to be.

Very few teams will be able to actively switch. Those who do switch are more likely to switch 1-4 or 2-4 or something like that. Not across all 5 positions. Especially against teams with guys like Moses Malone.

[Somebody]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

Likewise, Wallace and Gobert are modern defensive titans. I get that both players aren't on the level of those guys, but these are players who had top 10-15 impact on their teams at their very best.

Let’s use Wallace, since he actually played against great centers.

H2H, Shaq put up 25 / 10 / 3 on 59% shooting.

Wallace averaged 6 / 9 / 1 on 51% shooting.

In any matchup, you’re losing the center battle big time.  On a regular team, Wallace’s teammates could pick up the slack.  Shaq’s Lakers teams were two or three deep with great players.

In a historic draft, the opponents go at least 10 deep.  Losing one matchup in the starting lineup by 20+ points is a huge deficit.

That doesn’t just apply to centers, but they’re the most visible.  A big man shooting 55% inside is still going to be the most consistent and efficient way to score points.

The discrepancy wasn't as great in the 04 Finals.  Shaq was still pretty solid at 26.6/10.8, but Wallace was better at 10.8/13.6.  Shaq also turned it over nearly 3 times as much as well.  In the 05 ECF it was even closer as Shaq went for 20.6/7.6 vs. Wallace's 7.4/10.3.  Overall in the playoffs, Wallace's teams were 14-8 and he went for 8.1/10.7 vs. 21.9/9.3

Obviously Wallace is never going to outscore anyone, but significantly reducing the scoring impact of the opposing center has significant value, even in these all star team type centers because those teams are run through their big guys.  And it isn't like you need 5 scorers on the floor.  Tiny and Mailman are big time scorers and Peja was a 20+ scorer as well.  You can't just have 5 guys that need the ball to be effective.  You have to have the guys that are going to play within the system, know their role, and positively affect the output of the opposing player.  And take Memphis.  Is Mo Cheeks going to slow Tiny down.  What about AK47 on Malone.  Plus he is playing Kobe out of position at SF.  Or the Kings, is Cliff Robinson really going to hang with the Mailman.  I mean they played 49 regular season games against each other, it was over a 10+ difference favoring Malone, and in the playoffs it was over an 18 point difference.  And as much as you can like Siakam, Malone would destroy him lessoning whatever value Jokic might provide offensively over Big Ben.   

They obviously have 3 great offensive centers, but using that as a reason they have the best team without any sort of analysis just doesn't cut it.   That is why I booed the post, it provided no actual context or analysis.

^this. Shaq is still going to be a more voluminous scorer and better creator than most players in the league even with the likes of Wallace or Gobert guarding him, but both of these guys still bring massive value with their defence - they're able to chip away at the efficacy of these big man centric attacks in a way that no other centre can really replicate with spectacular man and team defence.

It just doesn’t work that way.  Great offense is going to beat great defense.  The greatest, most efficient offense is still going to come close to the basket.

“Chipping away” at a dominant center works when he’s got only a few valves to release pressure on him.  In this game, most teams will have five scorers to relieve pressure.

And let’s talk about switching.  How many teams can effectively switch on to Moses Malone, for instance.  I’ve talked before about how these games are about who can exploit the biggest mismatch.  How many teams can effectively guard Moses?

You can beat those great offences by dragging them down enough for your offence to beat them, and you can get close to the basket without ramming the ball down the middle for post ups every possession - wings and guards can drive to the basket, and they can even create two-on-one power plays by forcing the interior defender to help on their drives, creating high efficiency dunks/layups for their bigs with their passing.

Chipping away at a great centre with a defensive maestro works because you're dragging down his offensive impact with just one man and not leaving any of those release valves open. There's also only one great centre in this draft who has the scoring and passing game to take advantage of such openings if they ever arise - that's Jokic.

Quite a few? Moranis' Raptors team with Karl and Wallace, my Rockets team with Draymond and Gobert, Gouki's Jazz team with AK47 and Gilmore, GreenFaith's Pacers with Roundfield and Gasol immediately come to mind with centres who can really chip away at Moses' offence one on one while having a second big/swing who can provide good or elite help defence with smart rotations that doesn't expose the team defensively and even switch onto Moses effectively.

[Roy H.]

You can beat those great offences by dragging them down enough for your offence to beat them

Sure, but that’s extraordinarily difficult if you’re essentially playing 4-on-5.  Guys like Wallace and Rodman were great in the actual NBA.  I just don’t think they’d be as effective in any league where opponents started five offensive power houses.

[Who]

I think my three favorite teams are (in no order) the Kings, the Grizzlies and the Bucks.  I’m a sucker for a dominant center, regardless of era.

I boo this post.

Likewise, Wallace and Gobert are modern defensive titans. I get that both players aren't on the level of those guys, but these are players who had top 10-15 impact on their teams at their very best.

Let’s use Wallace, since he actually played against great centers.

H2H, Shaq put up 25 / 10 / 3 on 59% shooting.

Wallace averaged 6 / 9 / 1 on 51% shooting.

In any matchup, you’re losing the center battle big time.  On a regular team, Wallace’s teammates could pick up the slack.  Shaq’s Lakers teams were two or three deep with great players.

In a historic draft, the opponents go at least 10 deep.  Losing one matchup in the starting lineup by 20+ points is a huge deficit.

That doesn’t just apply to centers, but they’re the most visible.  A big man shooting 55% inside is still going to be the most consistent and efficient way to score points.

I don't worry about one position being at a major deficit in terms of point production because they are not taking an equal number of shots / possessions. That difference in shots / possessions is going to go talented teammates who can make up the difference. So I don't put much emphasis on that issue. 

What I worry about with Ben Wallace is his lack of team offense. Say versus Marc Gasol who is a low scoring center (13-15ppg most of his career)  but has significant value in team offense due to his passing ability and shooting ability. He is a threat. He has to be defended. He creates space for teammates. He passes the ball well and gets teammates the ball in more advantageous spots. He vacates the paint and lets players attack the paint. He has enough of a one-on-one post game to punish smaller players so you can't hide bad defenders on him.

Ben Wallace doesn't do those things. That is the part that bothers me. Not his point production but lack of team offense contribution. He is not a threat outside of the paint. He has to stay in the paint to be a threat in which case he clogs the paint. And he doesn't have a one-on-one game to punish lesser defenders.

What I worry about is his lack of team offense effective Karl Malone's ability to post up effectively.  I worry about spacing for Tiny's driving game. I worry that opponents will be allowed to put their defensive centers on K.Malone and hide their PFs on Ben Wallace. There are so many teams that have PFs that cannot possibly defend Karl Malone but can get away with it because they can switch their matchups because Ben Wallace is such a non-threat.

I also worry that when Ben Wallace is on a high post big and not allowed freedom to stay in the paint and roam around the paint to challenge and dissuade shots that his defensive value is decreased. That he will not have the defensive impact in this Historical League that he had in 2004 when he faced more two big man lineups many of which contained low skilled bigs that allowed him more defensive freedom to wreak havoc.

So low individual production + low team offense + vulnerable to decreased defensive value.

[Roy H.]

my Rockets team with Draymond and Gobert

Moses would eat Gobert, and especially Draymond, alive.  Green wouldn’t be able to defend great historical centers.

So low individual production + low team offense + vulnerable to decreased defensive value.

That’s a good way to put it, although I wonder if any player contributing fewer than 10ppg could effectively start in this league, regardless of other contributions.

[Who]

Doubling on Moses is doable because Moses is not a great passer. He doesn't see / hit cutters. And while he is able to pass out of double teams back to the perimeter, they are not good passes. They are not quick sharp passes. They are slow hanging passes that allow defenses more time to recover.

That extra time makes a world of difference in terms of how much of an advantage that perimeter player has once he gets the ball over the recovering defense.