2021 Historical Draft: How Does My Team Look?

[Moranis]

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 non-shooters 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.

In 97, Malone took 26.2% of his shots from 16' to the 3 point line and hit them at 53.6% (the following season he had 33.8% of his shots from that range and hit them at 52.8% so it wasn't a fluke, and that was tail end of his prime Malone).  He absolutely would have extended out to the 3 point line in modern basketball, and he absolutely would have been a fantastic 3 point shooter, because he was such a good shooter.  The reason the PnR between him and Stockton was so deadly was not just because Malone was so good rolling, but he was also so good at popping.  You couldn't defend it because both Malone and Stockton could go to the hole or hit the long shot.  Malone would have been deadly from the 3 point line in modern basketball.  He obviously wouldn't have had all of the post skills had he come up today, but I think he'd have been in the mold of Lebron James.  That doesn't mean I think he'd be as good as Lebron (I don't), but they have incredibly similar body types.  I think Malone would have been the prototypical modern PF.  Strong, athletic, with great all around skills including an excellent 3 point shooter.  There is certainly enough evidence on Malone's shooting to easily translate his range to the 3 point line. 

[Darth_Yoda]

Also regarding Moses.

He has to defend on the other end of the court. Having Ibaka, giannis and other small ball centers wpuld be something he has never had to deal with before and I question how well he will handle getting fug out to the 3pt line.

2nd separate thought

Moses Malone did defend small ball centers in his era and outside shooting centers.

(1) Bob McAdoo -- he was one of the best jump-shooting centers of all time. He had an outside shot but he did his best work in the midrange area (14-17 feet). He was 6-9 230lbs. He had good quickness and mobility for a PF but played C to gain an even larger advantage over his opponents. He was not just a shooter but was able to put the ball on the floor and drive. Use that quickness to attack. He was a matchup nightmare.

(2) Dan Issel -- he was the best outside jump-shooting big man of the late 70s early 80s. He was also a small ball center. He was 6-9 and built like a tank. Issel was also able to put the ball on the floor and drive as well as post up. He had similarities to David Lee (PF/C caught between two positions, useful at both) but was tougher and meaner. Dan Issel said Moses Malone was the defender who bothered him the most because Moses was even quicker than he was and could defend him out on the perimeter.

(3) Jack Sikma = more of a traditional center but had a stretch element to his game especially as he got older. More similar to Marc Gasol or Vlade Divac type. He had outside shot, a midrange shot & a dangerous post game. Above average passer as well. Less of a threat to put the ball on the floor but he could be opportunistic.

Small ball centers and stretch centers existed back then and Moses did well against them. Especially Houston Rockets era Moses Malone who had superior quickness. As he put on weight and got older (mid to late 80s) he struggled more.

I wonder about the 1983 Moses who was slower. He had some deceptive quickness when defenders or attackers got lazy and underestimated him but you didn't see it nearly as often as just two years earlier.

And you also have the increase in quantity of PnR as well as his individual check.

Even back then I dont the small ball centers were shooting from 25 feet regularly. So it would have been easier on Moses?

[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.

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.

I think that is a fair point, however the Jazz started Greg Ostertag next to Malone for much of the 90's (including the two Finals runs).  And before Ostertag, Felton Spencer was the starting center.  Ostertag was a terrible offensive player and even worse as a passer than Wallace (and Spencer may have been worse than Ostertag).  I understand it was a different era, but those unathletic terrible offensive lumbering big men, didn't negatively affect what Malone could do offensively in the slightest.  I feel much better having the much more athletic Wallace next to Malone.  That was actually one of the reasons I was ok selecting Wallace, because I knew what had worked so well with Malone in the past.  Once I got Malone and my Stockton i.e. Tiny, I almost went about modernizing what the Jazz were so that I could in fact get the most out of Malone.  I took Peja, Walker, Cooper, and Kiki to sort of mimic (though obviously with much greater skill) the roles that Russell, Hornacek, and Anderson filled.  I grabbed Wallace and Mikan to help take the burden off of Malone defensively (the Ostertag, Carr roles).  And obviously grabbed Haywood to be the Malone replacement when he was on the bench and the modern small ball center at the times it made sense to go small.  Buse was an excellent defender, passer, and shooter, so I think he would replicate what Tiny could do at least fairly well.

So what you see as a negative, I think actually worked quite well for the Jazz.  I understand real life teams aren't as good as the ones here, but when something works for the real life teams, if you can replicate it, but better, then I think that is actually the best evidence that it would work here.  And again, I want a center that is going to rebound and defend.  I know everyone claims that can't work, yet the Lakers just won the title with Dwight Howard and JaVale McGee at center.  They played the Heat with Bam Adebayo at center.  The Warriors were winning titles with McGee and Kevon Looney at center (and Bogut before that) and they were playing the Cavs with Thompson at center (who also won a title with Thompson).  This idea that you need a center to stretch the floor, just isn't born out in reality, even in modern ball.  Frankly, the only time (and I mean basically in the entire history of the league) we've ever seen a champion with a stretch center was the Raptors (and they don't even win it if Durant doesn't get hurt). 

[gouki88]

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?

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).

In a world where Rudy Gobert is perennial All-NBA feature the idea that Dwight Howard, a better player at everything except maybe passing, is crazy to me. Offhand remarks like that are pretty out there when you actually think about it. Talent continues to trump trends in game style man

[Who]

Also regarding Moses.

He has to defend on the other end of the court. Having Ibaka, giannis and other small ball centers wpuld be something he has never had to deal with before and I question how well he will handle getting fug out to the 3pt line.

2nd separate thought

Moses Malone did defend small ball centers in his era and outside shooting centers.

(1) Bob McAdoo -- he was one of the best jump-shooting centers of all time. He had an outside shot but he did his best work in the midrange area (14-17 feet). He was 6-9 230lbs. He had good quickness and mobility for a PF but played C to gain an even larger advantage over his opponents. He was not just a shooter but was able to put the ball on the floor and drive. Use that quickness to attack. He was a matchup nightmare.

(2) Dan Issel -- he was the best outside jump-shooting big man of the late 70s early 80s. He was also a small ball center. He was 6-9 and built like a tank. Issel was also able to put the ball on the floor and drive as well as post up. He had similarities to David Lee (PF/C caught between two positions, useful at both) but was tougher and meaner. Dan Issel said Moses Malone was the defender who bothered him the most because Moses was even quicker than he was and could defend him out on the perimeter.

(3) Jack Sikma = more of a traditional center but had a stretch element to his game especially as he got older. More similar to Marc Gasol or Vlade Divac type. He had outside shot, a midrange shot & a dangerous post game. Above average passer as well. Less of a threat to put the ball on the floor but he could be opportunistic.

Small ball centers and stretch centers existed back then and Moses did well against them. Especially Houston Rockets era Moses Malone who had superior quickness. As he put on weight and got older (mid to late 80s) he struggled more.

I wonder about the 1983 Moses who was slower. He had some deceptive quickness when defenders or attackers got lazy and underestimated him but you didn't see it nearly as often as just two years earlier.

And you also have the increase in quantity of PnR as well as his individual check.

Even back then I dont the small ball centers were shooting from 25 feet regularly. So it would have been easier on Moses?

Yes, you are right, it's not exactly the same. There is that extra bit of space and there is the added threat of an extra point on the three point shot vs the long two which changes how much the defense wants to deny the shot.

However, you can build an understanding of how a player (Moses) defends in space. When he is out on the floor away from the basket. When he is more exposed. You can see how he handles a quick five that will try and beat him with speed. And you can see how he can handle jump-shooters.

That difference from 20 feet to 24 feet doesn't change that much in terms of those things.

All this said, I do believe 1983 Moses Malone would struggle more with these type of defensive actions than he would have even 2 years earlier when he noticeably lighter, quicker and more mobile - which was when he was best able to defend these actions.

[GreenFaith1819]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ8BVTiJsWU

Just sayin'.

[nickagneta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ8BVTiJsWU

Just sayin'.

I like your style but this has already been done with a much better player.

Just saying.....

😁😁😇😇👍👍

[Somebody]

Also regarding Moses.

He has to defend on the other end of the court. Having Ibaka, giannis and other small ball centers wpuld be something he has never had to deal with before and I question how well he will handle getting fug out to the 3pt line.

2nd separate thought

Moses Malone did defend small ball centers in his era and outside shooting centers.

(1) Bob McAdoo -- he was one of the best jump-shooting centers of all time. He had an outside shot but he did his best work in the midrange area (14-17 feet). He was 6-9 230lbs. He had good quickness and mobility for a PF but played C to gain an even larger advantage over his opponents. He was not just a shooter but was able to put the ball on the floor and drive. Use that quickness to attack. He was a matchup nightmare.

(2) Dan Issel -- he was the best outside jump-shooting big man of the late 70s early 80s. He was also a small ball center. He was 6-9 and built like a tank. Issel was also able to put the ball on the floor and drive as well as post up. He had similarities to David Lee (PF/C caught between two positions, useful at both) but was tougher and meaner. Dan Issel said Moses Malone was the defender who bothered him the most because Moses was even quicker than he was and could defend him out on the perimeter.

(3) Jack Sikma = more of a traditional center but had a stretch element to his game especially as he got older. More similar to Marc Gasol or Vlade Divac type. He had outside shot, a midrange shot & a dangerous post game. Above average passer as well. Less of a threat to put the ball on the floor but he could be opportunistic.

Small ball centers and stretch centers existed back then and Moses did well against them. Especially Houston Rockets era Moses Malone who had superior quickness. As he put on weight and got older (mid to late 80s) he struggled more.

I wonder about the 1983 Moses who was slower. He had some deceptive quickness when defenders or attackers got lazy and underestimated him but you didn't see it nearly as often as just two years earlier.

And you also have the increase in quantity of PnR as well as his individual check.

Even back then I dont the small ball centers were shooting from 25 feet regularly. So it would have been easier on Moses?

Yes, you are right, it's not exactly the same. There is that extra bit of space and there is the added threat of an extra point on the three point shot vs the long two which changes how much the defense wants to deny the shot.

However, you can build an understanding of how a player (Moses) defends in space. When he is out on the floor away from the basket. When he is more exposed. You can see how he handles a quick five that will try and beat him with speed. And you can see how he can handle jump-shooters.

That difference from 20 feet to 24 feet doesn't change that much in terms of those things.

All this said, I do believe 1983 Moses Malone would struggle more with these type of defensive actions than he would have even 2 years earlier when he noticeably lighter, quicker and more mobile - which was when he was best able to defend these actions.

I've watched a bit of tape regarding young Moses, and while he was quicker back then, I do feel that he wasn't great at rotations and really wasn't all that comfortable at the perimeter - his inclination was to stay near the hoop and be a physical presence under the rim to block shots and rebound. Good defensive centre though, that shot-blocking and defensive rebounding brings value on that end.

[Somebody]

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?

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).

In a world where Rudy Gobert is perennial All-NBA feature the idea that Dwight Howard, a better player at everything except maybe passing, is crazy to me. Offhand remarks like that are pretty out there when you actually think about it. Talent continues to trump trends in game style man

I mean in what world does a mobile defensive big man who is a menace in the paint doesn't scale well lol.

[Somebody]

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 non-shooters 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.

In 97, Malone took 26.2% of his shots from 16' to the 3 point line and hit them at 53.6% (the following season he had 33.8% of his shots from that range and hit them at 52.8% so it wasn't a fluke, and that was tail end of his prime Malone).  He absolutely would have extended out to the 3 point line in modern basketball, and he absolutely would have been a fantastic 3 point shooter, because he was such a good shooter.  The reason the PnR between him and Stockton was so deadly was not just because Malone was so good rolling, but he was also so good at popping.  You couldn't defend it because both Malone and Stockton could go to the hole or hit the long shot.  Malone would have been deadly from the 3 point line in modern basketball.  He obviously wouldn't have had all of the post skills had he come up today, but I think he'd have been in the mold of Lebron James.  That doesn't mean I think he'd be as good as Lebron (I don't), but they have incredibly similar body types.  I think Malone would have been the prototypical modern PF.  Strong, athletic, with great all around skills including an excellent 3 point shooter.  There is certainly enough evidence on Malone's shooting to easily translate his range to the 3 point line.

Did Karl even have that good of a post game in the 90s? Like he was deadly in the high post, don't get me wrong, but he scored in good ol' isolation with faceup drives and turnaround jumpshots more than up and unders/dream shakes. Don't see how him learning how to shoot threes would affect his post game that much when there have been a number of high post bigs who shoot a ton of threes doing massive damage in the modern NBA (eg. Dirk, Jokic, etc).

[gouki88]

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?

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).

In a world where Rudy Gobert is perennial All-NBA feature the idea that Dwight Howard, a better player at everything except maybe passing, is crazy to me. Offhand remarks like that are pretty out there when you actually think about it. Talent continues to trump trends in game style man

I mean in what world does a mobile defensive big man who is a menace in the paint doesn't scale well lol.

Especially a mobile defensive big who was as strong as an ox and also had a huge vertical. Dwight Howard has a place in any era, even if his mindset was all over the joint sometimes

[Somebody]

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.

Garnett defended Karl pretty well from '99 onwards though. Also the Heat had two of their stars get injured in that series and still pushed the series to 6 games.

[Somebody]

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.

I would agree in a lot of cases, but the Kings have such smart, quick decision makers that I think they can handle sub-optimal passes.

Sacramento Kings
PG: Tim Hardaway Sr. (1990-91) / Jrue Holiday (2018-19) / Sam Cassell (2003-04)
SG: Joe Dumars (1992-93) / Danny Ainge (1988-89) / Šarūnas Marčiulionis (1991-92)
SF: Alex English (1982-83) / Jamaal Wilkes (1980-81) / Bruce Bowen (2004-05)
PF: Cliff Robinson (1995-96) / Maurice Lucas (1976-77) / Robert Horry (1995-1996)
C: Moses Malone (1982-83) / Mehmet Okur (2005-06) / Truck Robinson (1977-78)

I think the only guy on that team I don’t really trust is Okur.  That guard rotation in particular just has tremendous basketball IQ.

Being able to handle sub-optimal passes isn't equivalent to creating a highly efficient offence though, and those sub-optimal passes were a rarity in Moses' game + probable TOs with zone defences/stunting being allowed in the modern game.

[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?

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).

In a world where Rudy Gobert is perennial All-NBA feature the idea that Dwight Howard, a better player at everything except maybe passing, is crazy to me. Offhand remarks like that are pretty out there when you actually think about it. Talent continues to trump trends in game style man

I mean in what world does a mobile defensive big man who is a menace in the paint doesn't scale well lol.

Especially a mobile defensive big who was as strong as an ox and also had a huge vertical. Dwight Howard has a place in any era, even if his mindset was all over the joint sometimes

D12 would do just fine in this era. 

I wonder about him in the 80s and 90s, though.  In those eras, would he have been a perennial all-star?

I don’t see him matching up well against any of Moses, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, Parish, Gilmore, Hakeem or Kareem.  Too undersized and no post moves or jumper.

[Somebody]

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.

Yeah, it's hard to see that in today's game.

I would be comfortable with it in a Historical League based in the 90s or 80s though. In a more physical league, more post-up orientated league & in a league where rebounding has more value than in today's game ... I believe you can use those guys as starters even against 5 big time scorers.

In today's pace and space & shoot 3s at volume game, I have a hard time with them.

Maybe if you go 4 out. Lots of perimeter scorers and just let them be your Clint Capela type. Lineups like the Bulls had with Rodman next to Kukoc.

C - Rodman
F - Kukoc
F - Pippen
G - Jordan
G - Harper

That type of a setup. 4 perimeter guys with Rodman allowed to hunt for rebounds.

Hard to stick them (Wallace, Rodman) next to a 2nd big man in today's pace and space game without doing more damage to your offense than they can justify with their D & board work.

Oh for sure. Moranis does have Karl next to Wallace though (and I feel that 2016 Draymond next to Gobert is a good fit offensively, Gobert's more of a neutral/slight positive offensively and can be a monster lob finisher with Green's short roll passing).