2021 Historical Draft: How Does My Team Look?

[Who]

as much as you can like Siakam, Malone would destroy him lessoning whatever value Jokic might provide offensively over Big Ben.   

Mismatches work both ways. Siakam ain't strong enough to defend Karl Malone in the paint. Karl Malone ain't mobile enough to defend Siakam on the perimeter.

Malone was one of the most dominant players in the NBA in the 90s. Thing is, the game has evolved big time since then.

Take Karl Malone and Siakam. The former was a surefire 1st rounder in our draft. The latter was a 6th rounder.

• Malone didn't make a single 3pt shot throughout the 1996/97 season. He made 55.5% of his 2pt shots. That's 111 points per 100 possessions.
• Siakam shot 36.9% from 3 in 2.7 attempts per game during the 2018/19 season. That's 110.7 points per 100 possessions.

You only gain a marginal advantage of 0.3 points per 100 possessions, simply because Malone was a non-shooter from 3pt range.

I haven't even touched the advanced stats yet, such as offensive rating. Malone's offensive rating in 1996/97 was 118. Siakam's offensive rating in 2018/19 was 120! This means he was generating 2 more points per 100 possessions! Why? Cause he had the 3pt shot in his arsenal. It's as simple as that! Being able to shoot the 3, worked wonders for his inside game as well. Opponents had to respect his shot, which gave him the opportunity to blow by them on the perimeter and attack the basket. In fact, Siakam was shooting 60.2% from 2pt range in 2018/19 (again, the respective number for Malone was 55.5%). Obviously, Siakam ain't a better inside scorer than Malone. He's a much more versatile shooter though, hence he's more efficient.

You could argue that Malone would have adjusted his game to fit in the modern era. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. There's no way to know for sure whether he'd become an efficient 3pt shooter. Don't get me wrong, Malone is an all-time great. He would have been a great player in any era. My point is, you can't have multiple old school players in your lineup. It wouldn't be an efficient lineup anymore. At least, this is how I see it.

There are plenty of teams with multiple non-shooters in their lineups. With all due respect, imo these teams wouldn't cut it in today's game.

Siakam is nowhere near strong enough to defend Karl Malone in the post. They aren't post ups. They are deep catches in the paint. They are layups or free throws.

Karl Malone would torch Siakam. And AK-47. And Clifford Robinson (from 1996). And Connie Hawkins. None of those guys can defend Karl Malone. Not a hope.

I'll say it again - Layups and free throws.

The only problem here is Ben Wallace. His inability to spread the floor to allow Karl Malone to destroy -- and I do mean DESTROY -- those players in the paint.

Which is why I wanted to see that team add a center who had an outside shot to give K.Malone the room to do exactly that.

2nd issue is that teams with weak defensive PFs like the ones mentioned above who cannot cover Karl Malone -- these teams can hide those players on Ben Wallace and use their centers to defend Karl Malone in the paint to take away his interior scoring. Force Malone to beat them on jump-shots.

This is why I would've liked to have seen a big man who not only had a jump-shot but was also a post up threat. To stop teams from switching centers onto Karl Malone. Someone big enough to scare those small PFs (who are combo SF/PFs really).

On your particular team with Siakam and Jokic, I do not like that option. Jokic is too slow and vulnerable defensively to Karl Malone's superior quickness and ability to drive on big men and either get to the rim or the FT line. Maybe you can use Siakam as the help defender and reduce that option. I don't know. Certainly if there is a 2nd big man who can shoot next to Malone that is a tougher obstacle and leaves Jokic more exposed.

As far Karl Malone's 3 point shot, I have no doubt he'd be shooting 3s with good accuracy and volume. He was nailing jump-shots at a high clip one step inside the line. I see no reason to doubt his ability to shoot 3s if he had grown up & played in today's era.

[Roy H.]

as much as you can like Siakam, Malone would destroy him lessoning whatever value Jokic might provide offensively over Big Ben.   

Mismatches work both ways. Siakam ain't strong enough to defend Karl Malone in the paint. Karl Malone ain't mobile enough to defend Siakam on the perimeter.

Malone was one of the most dominant players in the NBA in the 90s. Thing is, the game has evolved big time since then.

Take Karl Malone and Siakam. The former was a surefire 1st rounder in our draft. The latter was a 6th rounder.

• Malone didn't make a single 3pt shot throughout the 1996/97 season. He made 55.5% of his 2pt shots. That's 111 points per 100 possessions.
• Siakam shot 36.9% from 3 in 2.7 attempts per game during the 2018/19 season. That's 110.7 points per 100 possessions.

You only gain a marginal advantage of 0.3 points per 100 possessions, simply because Malone was a non-shooter from 3pt range.

I haven't even touched the advanced stats yet, such as offensive rating. Malone's offensive rating in 1996/97 was 118. Siakam's offensive rating in 2018/19 was 120! This means he was generating 2 more points per 100 possessions! Why? Cause he had the 3pt shot in his arsenal. It's as simple as that! Being able to shoot the 3, worked wonders for his inside game as well. Opponents had to respect his shot, which gave him the opportunity to blow by them on the perimeter and attack the basket. In fact, Siakam was shooting 60.2% from 2pt range in 2018/19 (again, the respective number for Malone was 55.5%). Obviously, Siakam ain't a better inside scorer than Malone. He's a much more versatile shooter though, hence he's more efficient.

You could argue that Malone would have adjusted his game to fit in the modern era. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. There's no way to know for sure whether he'd become an efficient 3pt shooter. Don't get me wrong, Malone is an all-time great. He would have been a great player in any era. My point is, you can't have multiple old school players in your lineup. It wouldn't be an efficient lineup anymore. At least, this is how I see it.

There are plenty of teams with multiple non-shooters in their lineups. With all due respect, imo these teams wouldn't cut it in today's game.

Any metric that shows Siakam anywhere close to Malone is garbage.

And the idea that teams with multiple “old school” players couldn’t be efficient is silly.  Karl Malone had multiple seasons with a TS% over .600.  With his power and speed, he’d probably be even more dominant today.  And, if Horford, Gasol, Boogie, Baynes and others can add 3PT shots, there’s no doubt in my mind that Malone would have as well.

[gouki88]

as much as you can like Siakam, Malone would destroy him lessoning whatever value Jokic might provide offensively over Big Ben.   

Mismatches work both ways. Siakam ain't strong enough to defend Karl Malone in the paint. Karl Malone ain't mobile enough to defend Siakam on the perimeter.

Malone was one of the most dominant players in the NBA in the 90s. Thing is, the game has evolved big time since then.

Take Karl Malone and Siakam. The former was a surefire 1st rounder in our draft. The latter was a 6th rounder.

• Malone didn't make a single 3pt shot throughout the 1996/97 season. He made 55.5% of his 2pt shots. That's 111 points per 100 possessions.
• Siakam shot 36.9% from 3 in 2.7 attempts per game during the 2018/19 season. That's 110.7 points per 100 possessions.

You only gain a marginal advantage of 0.3 points per 100 possessions, simply because Malone was a non-shooter from 3pt range.

I haven't even touched the advanced stats yet, such as offensive rating. Malone's offensive rating in 1996/97 was 118. Siakam's offensive rating in 2018/19 was 120! This means he was generating 2 more points per 100 possessions! Why? Cause he had the 3pt shot in his arsenal. It's as simple as that! Being able to shoot the 3, worked wonders for his inside game as well. Opponents had to respect his shot, which gave him the opportunity to blow by them on the perimeter and attack the basket. In fact, Siakam was shooting 60.2% from 2pt range in 2018/19 (again, the respective number for Malone was 55.5%). Obviously, Siakam ain't a better inside scorer than Malone. He's a much more versatile shooter though, hence he's more efficient.

You could argue that Malone would have adjusted his game to fit in the modern era. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. There's no way to know for sure whether he'd become an efficient 3pt shooter. Don't get me wrong, Malone is an all-time great. He would have been a great player in any era. My point is, you can't have multiple old school players in your lineup. It wouldn't be an efficient lineup anymore. At least, this is how I see it.

There are plenty of teams with multiple non-shooters in their lineups. With all due respect, imo these teams wouldn't cut it in today's game.

Any metric that shows Siakam anywhere close to Malone is garbage.

Total and utter garbage indeed. This is a perfect example of needing to blend metrics with actually observing the play. Malone would make Siakam look like a kid - as he’d do to AK47 on my team. That’s why Artis is defending Karl.

I really dislike the notion that teams whose premier players aren’t shooters would struggle today. The reigning champs’ two best players are below average 3PT shooters, and they’re both top 5-7 players in the league!

Talent trumps trends in game style every day of the week and twice on Sundays

[Jvalin]

Any metric that shows Siakam anywhere close to Malone is garbage.

Forget about the advanced metrics (since you think they are garbage). All I did was 2 simple multiplications:

55.5 × 2 = 111 points per 100 possessions
36.9 × 3 = 110.7 points per 100 possessions

I'm not saying anything new here. This is the whole logic behind the pace and space era.

Again, I'm not arguing that Malone would have been a worse player than Siakam in today's game. My point is that teams with multiple non-shooters wouldn't stand a chance in today's game, even against less talented teams.

if Horford, Gasol, Boogie, Baynes and others can add 3PT shots, there’s no doubt in my mind that Malone would have as well.

That's irrelevant. He didn't have a 3pt shot in 1996/97. This is the season we are talking about.


@Who
Malone would wreak havoc in the paint, that's for sure. Having said that, Kirlenko, Siakam and Cliff are great defenders. It's not like Malone would be playing against cones or something.

Personally speaking, I'm super high on Kirilenko. I bet he'd give Malone a run for his money.

[nickagneta]

Just saying.....

[gouki88]

Given arguably the greatest defender of all time (Kevin Garnett) couldn’t get a hold of Karl Malone until he was literally a 40 year old Laker, I don’t know why weaker and smaller players who were also worse defenders would be able to handle him. The Mailman is one of the GOAT offensive forces.

That’s why I plan on doubling him pretty often with Artis & AK47.

The Heat, a less talented but much better shooting team than the Lakers, just got belted in one of the least competitive Finals series of all time. Talent wins.

[Jvalin]

Just saying.....

You got a grand total of 1 shooter in your starting lineup.

Giannis without shooters ain't dominant anymore. He couldn't even dominate the FIBA World Cup last year against clearly inferior opponents. For instance, Brazil clogged the paint and Giannis fouled out trying to bully his way into the basket. Greece had the best player in the tournament + plenty of other good players at the Euroleague level, yet they didn't even make the final 8. Just like your team, Greece had a grand total of 1 shooter in their starting lineup (Kostas Sloukas).  Just saying...

[Roy H.]

That's irrelevant. He didn't have a 3pt shot in 1996/97. This is the season we are talking about.

Well, no, not precisely.  The rules of these drafts suppose that historic players will be equalized regarding nutrition and training and they will have a reasonable chance to adjust to the rules of the era.

[gouki88]

Just saying.....

You got a grand total of 1 shooter in your starting lineup.

Giannis without shooters ain't dominant anymore. He couldn't even dominate the FIBA World Cup last year against clearly inferior opponents. For instance, Brazil clogged the paint and Giannis fouled out trying to bully his way into the basket. Greece had the best player in the tournament + plenty of other good players at the Euroleague level, yet they didn't even make the final 8. Just like your team, Greece had a grand total of 1 shooter in their starting lineup (Kostas Sloukas).  Just saying...

Granger was a 40% 3PT shooter that year, as was Parker. He’s also got Redick, Booker and Turkoglu off the bench. Not like his team has no shooting.

You also use a totally irrelevant example of international basketball, where the talent level is completely all over the place, yet the pertinent example, being the most recent NBA Finals, where the less talented better shooting team got absolutely walloped is ignored.

I find your insistence that to succeed you need to rely on shooting over talent to be very very flawed. It’s all part of the game, and the disagreements are half the fun, but I really don’t think that’s a fair way of evaluating that talent.

[Jvalin]

That's irrelevant. He didn't have a 3pt shot in 1996/97. This is the season we are talking about.

Well, no, not precisely.  The rules of these drafts suppose that historic players will be equalized regarding nutrition and training and they will have a reasonable chance to adjust to the rules of the era.

Then what's the point in selecting specific seasons and discussing shooting% from these seasons? I'm all for not selecting specific seasons btw.

@gouki
Granger is the 1 guy I was talking about. Even Granger, he was more of a scorer rather than a shooter. He wanted to have the ball in his hands on offense. Not exactly the ideal fit next to Giannis.

Parker was attempting 0.5 threes per game in 2006/07. He's also a career 32.4% shooter from 3pt range on just 1.3 attempts per game.

Redick, Booker and Turkoglu are coming off the bench (at least based on Nick's depth chart). Redick and Booker fit perfectly next to Giannis. If I were Nick, I'd be looking to play them as much as possible when Giannis is on the court. Unfortunately, the both play the same position.

[nickagneta]

Just saying.....

You got a grand total of 1 shooter in your starting lineup.

Giannis without shooters ain't dominant anymore. He couldn't even dominate the FIBA World Cup last year against clearly inferior opponents. For instance, Brazil clogged the paint and Giannis fouled out trying to bully his way into the basket. Greece had the best player in the tournament + plenty of other good players at the Euroleague level, yet they didn't even make the final 8. Just like your team, Greece had a grand total of 1 shooter in their starting lineup (Kostas Sloukas).  Just saying...

Granger was a 40% 3PT shooter that year, as was Parker. He’s also got Redick, Booker and Turkoglu off the bench. Not like his team has no shooting.

You also use a totally irrelevant example of international basketball, where the talent level is completely all over the place, yet the pertinent example, being the most recent NBA Finals, where the less talented better shooting team got absolutely walloped is ignored.

I find your insistence that to succeed you need to rely on shooting over talent to be very very flawed. It’s all part of the game, and the disagreements are half the fun, but I really don’t think that’s a fair way of evaluating that talent.

Oh, the Suns have other shooters too. Like Anthony Mason and Steve Kerr.

Funny thing about Anthony Mason, much like KG, he was deadly in the 16-22' range. Over 50% for his career and in the year selected, he took around 60 of those shots and hit then at over 75%.

So though Mason wasn't a three point shooter, although I contend who could be in today's game, he was deadly with long two's and so could still pull people out of the paint because of his shooting.

And though he is deep bench, Steve Kerr, over 50% from three. So if he needs to be in the game to spread the floor, he can be too.

[nickagneta]

That's irrelevant. He didn't have a 3pt shot in 1996/97. This is the season we are talking about.

Well, no, not precisely.  The rules of these drafts suppose that historic players will be equalized regarding nutrition and training and they will have a reasonable chance to adjust to the rules of the era.

Then what's the point in selecting specific seasons and discussing shooting% from these seasons? I'm all for not selecting specific seasons btw.

@gouki
Granger is the 1 guy I was talking about. Even Granger, he was more of a scorer rather than a shooter. He wanted to have the ball in his hands on offense. Not exactly the ideal fit next to Giannis.

Parker was attempting 0.5 threes per game in 2006/07. He's also a career 32.4% shooter from 3pt range on just 1.3 attempts per game.

Redick, Booker and Turkoglu are coming off the bench (at least based on Nick's depth chart). Redick and Booker fit perfectly next to Giannis. If I were Nick, I'd be looking to play them as much as possible when Giannis is on the court. Unfortunately, the both play the same position.

Traditional PGs aren't really required so much on a team where Giannis, Drexler and Booker will be doing the majority of the playmaking and ball handling. So Redick at PG works fine when playing with those other guys. He guards PGs and plays off ball on offense.

[Jvalin]

That's irrelevant. He didn't have a 3pt shot in 1996/97. This is the season we are talking about.

Well, no, not precisely.  The rules of these drafts suppose that historic players will be equalized regarding nutrition and training and they will have a reasonable chance to adjust to the rules of the era.

Then what's the point in selecting specific seasons and discussing shooting% from these seasons? I'm all for not selecting specific seasons btw.

@gouki
Granger is the 1 guy I was talking about. Even Granger, he was more of a scorer rather than a shooter. He wanted to have the ball in his hands on offense. Not exactly the ideal fit next to Giannis.

Parker was attempting 0.5 threes per game in 2006/07. He's also a career 32.4% shooter from 3pt range on just 1.3 attempts per game.

Redick, Booker and Turkoglu are coming off the bench (at least based on Nick's depth chart). Redick and Booker fit perfectly next to Giannis. If I were Nick, I'd be looking to play them as much as possible when Giannis is on the court. Unfortunately, the both play the same position.

Traditional PGs aren't really required so much on a team where Giannis, Drexler and Booker will be doing the majority of the playmaking and ball handling. So Redick at PG works fine when playing with those other guys. He guards PGs and plays off ball on offense.

That's a plan for the regular season. Problem is, the pace of the game slows down come playoff time. Opposing teams aren't just gonna let you run at will. They'll try to slow you down. Not sure whether your plan would work in slow-paced playoff games. You need a legit PG in slow paced games.

[Roy H.]

Then what's the point in selecting specific seasons and discussing shooting% from these seasons? I'm all for not selecting specific seasons btw.

I don’t think anybody is arguing that those shooting percentages are set in stone.  They’re going to change based upon how roles shift, etc., just like any other stat in this game.

But it’s silly to think that guys from prior eras won’t adjust their games.  You don’t think Larry would have taken more threes, or others wouldn’t have extended their range?  You don’t think the best players in NBA history would play efficient basketball?

[Jvalin]

Then what's the point in selecting specific seasons and discussing shooting% from these seasons? I'm all for not selecting specific seasons btw.

I don’t think anybody is arguing that those shooting percentages are set in stone.  They’re going to change based upon how roles shift, etc., just like any other stat in this game.

But it’s silly to think that guys from prior eras won’t adjust their games.  You don’t think Larry would have taken more threes, or others wouldn’t have extended their range?  You don’t think the best players in NBA history would play efficient basketball?

Apples and oranges, imo. We know for a fact that Larry was an elite 3pt shooter. Chances are he would have been an even better shooter in today's game!

It's reasonable to assume that good mid range shooters would have extended their range to the 3pt line. We can't possibly know whether non-shooters or below average shooters would have developed a 3pt shot.

Malone is an all-time great. Imo, he'd be a great player in any era. That's not the case for every player though. For instance, Dwight Howard was super dominant in the late 00s/early 10s. If you ask me, he'd be a role player in today's game (even if he were in his prime).

At the same time, a guy like Jason Kapono (elite shooter) would have been lethal in today's game. Unfortunately for him, he entered the league prior to the pace and space era.