2023 CS Historic Draft - How's My Team?

[Roy H.]

Cleveland (Roy H.):
PG:  Mookie Blaylock / Isaiah Thomas
SG: Manu Ginobili / Reggie Lewis / J.J. Redick
SF: Andre Iguodala / Jamal Mashburn
PF: Elton Brand / Andrei Kirilenko
C:  Dikembe Mutombo / DeMarcus Cousins / Mehmet Okur

Solid team here, I like all the fits.  Another great passing team.  Good depth that is very versatile.  A bit lacking in the high-end talent compared to other teams.  Is there any player on this team with even 1 all-nba first team selection?

I think you basically got what I was going for.  I wanted to build an actual team, instead of a collection of parts.  So, "fit" was the second most important factor to me, with the first being how much I personally liked the guy.  So, priorities were fit, versatility, passing, defense and efficiency.

To some extent, your criticism is built into the strategy.  I thought a lot of the MVP candidates had some significant question marks about their ability to fit into a team setting.  Also, it was important to me to have a physically imposing team.  A lot of high-scoring superstars in this draft don't fit that model.  That said, my man IT did finish top-5 in MVP voting while having one of the greatest mixes of scoring and efficiency in Boston Celtics history.

================================

As I've mentioned previously, I didn't prepare for the first round at all.  I was basically dead certain that Alonzo Mourning would be there at my pick.  If he'd made it to my pick, I would have hopefully just slid everyone down about a round until the Dikembe pick.  How I envisioned my top five picks:

C:  Mourning
PF: Brand
SF: Iguodala
SG: Ginobili
PG: Porter

Getting Dikembe (4x DPOY, 8-time all-star, 3x blocks leader) and Mookie (6x All-Defense; 2x steals leader; all-star) as consolation prizes wasn't bad.

[Roy H.]

Something to debate, I guess:

During a recent conversation with ex-NBAers Quentin Richardson and Darius Miles on their show Knuckleheads Podcast, Howard’s former Orlando Magic coach Stan Van Gundy opined that not only did Howard deserve a spot in the league’s recent “NBA 75” (a group of players the league named as its best-ever to commemorate its 75th anniversary last year), but he deserved it in spite of his own Los Angeles teammate, Anthony Davis. SVG’s relationship with Howard famously did not survive their time together in Orlando. “To me, the only guys you could even talk about in his league at that time [of Howard’s peak, from roughly 2008-12] were LeBron and Kobe,” Van Gundy opined. “I think Anthony Davis is great, but at the time they selected [the NBA’s 75th anniversary team in 2022] I mean, it’s not close.” “You cannot make a case that Anthony Davis had a better career than Dwight Howard, that’s absolutely ridiculous

So, who do you have as a greater player, Dwight Howard or 2022 and earlier Anthony Davis?

Davis:  8x All-Star, 4x All-NBA, 4x All-Defense, 3x blocks leader, one title

Howard:  8x All-Star, 8x All-NBA, 3x DPOY, 5x All-Defense, 2x blocks leader, 5x rebound leader, one title

Van Gundy seems right regarding the accolades.  Counterpoints:  Davis arguably had a higher peak and a more versatile game; Davis won his title as a key contributor, while Dwight was a role player; Dwight is one of the most hated guys in the NBA, including by teammates, while Davis is at least neutral

[Moranis]

Dwight is BY FAR the biggest snub.  I think there is a better argument he is top 50 all time than not top 76 all time. 

[theswitch]

The problem I had with Lanier is every eligible season, except 2 of the last 3 when he was a shell of himself, he basically missed 20 games every year.  He just wasn't healthy.  Now as a bench player, I suppose that isn't a big deal, but I had a really hard time projecting him as a starter when he couldn't stay on the floor.

That's a good point, and one of the near impossible tasks with 144 players drafted.  I have no idea who was healthy, who missed a chunk of the season, etc.  I suspect I'd rank some teams downward if they were relying on guys who missed 15+ games, but I have no idea who those guys were.

Here's how I'm approaching Lanier -- he played 64 / 82 games that season. So you know you're going to be without him for 22% of the season. I'd assume that most players are going to get to 75-ish games and pick up a knock here or there, so it's really that you're missing an extra 11 games or 13% of the season. Material, but not like you're missing half the season without the guy. Then if we are really going to take it by the "year", you have to look at the playoffs and say "okay this guy was there for the playoffs and averaged 28 points a game in nearly 40 minutes." So clearly healthy. It looks like he basically missed the month of March and was otherwise fine.

So then you come back to Chicago. I thought the Daugherty pick was brilliant. In my opinion Daugherty is the best backup center in this league. Maybe behind 1-2 guys like Sikma but he's clearly starter-caliber and up there. I'd take him over a few of the starters. So for one month of the season your big man rotation goes down to Blake Griffin, Larry Nance, Brad Daugherty for 32 minutes a game each, or if you need to you can play Camby some spot minutes. I don't see any issue with that.

I love Serge Ibaka. But if Chicago had Serge rather than Daugherty then I'd be more concerned about that team. If it were Theo Ratliff I'd be more concerned about the team. For one month, though, you can live very happily with Brad Daugherty.

Plus then Daugherty and Nance get to run together again which was a fun IRL pairing.

[Who]

Something to debate, I guess:

During a recent conversation with ex-NBAers Quentin Richardson and Darius Miles on their show Knuckleheads Podcast, Howard’s former Orlando Magic coach Stan Van Gundy opined that not only did Howard deserve a spot in the league’s recent “NBA 75” (a group of players the league named as its best-ever to commemorate its 75th anniversary last year), but he deserved it in spite of his own Los Angeles teammate, Anthony Davis. SVG’s relationship with Howard famously did not survive their time together in Orlando. “To me, the only guys you could even talk about in his league at that time [of Howard’s peak, from roughly 2008-12] were LeBron and Kobe,” Van Gundy opined. “I think Anthony Davis is great, but at the time they selected [the NBA’s 75th anniversary team in 2022] I mean, it’s not close.” “You cannot make a case that Anthony Davis had a better career than Dwight Howard, that’s absolutely ridiculous

So, who do you have as a greater player, Dwight Howard or 2022 and earlier Anthony Davis?

Davis:  8x All-Star, 4x All-NBA, 4x All-Defense, 3x blocks leader, one title

Howard:  8x All-Star, 8x All-NBA, 3x DPOY, 5x All-Defense, 2x blocks leader, 5x rebound leader, one title

Van Gundy seems right regarding the accolades.  Counterpoints:  Davis arguably had a higher peak and a more versatile game; Davis won his title as a key contributor, while Dwight was a role player; Dwight is one of the most hated guys in the NBA, including by teammates, while Davis is at least neutral

Anthony Davis' inclusion in the team was ridiculous. They were looking ahead to the future. He had just won the title and they figured he had several more dominant years ahead of him and that he would deserve to be there by the end of his career. But he absolutely did not deserve to be there at that juncture in his career.

They did the same thing with Shaq on the 1997 NBA at 50 team. He got in even though he had not yet earned the spot.

Lillard for me did not deserve to be on the top 75 team either.

These guys should be considered for the next team. The NBA at 100. When they have finished their careers. Those former players who were left off the top 75 team are incredibly unlikely to get any look in on the next team. AD and Lillard would have got consideration then. It is just cutting out legends of the game in favour of guys who hadn't done enough to earn the spot.

[Who]

I thought Dwight was the 3rd best player in the league behind LeBron and Wade around 2009-2011.

[Moranis]

The problem I had with Lanier is every eligible season, except 2 of the last 3 when he was a shell of himself, he basically missed 20 games every year.  He just wasn't healthy.  Now as a bench player, I suppose that isn't a big deal, but I had a really hard time projecting him as a starter when he couldn't stay on the floor.

That's a good point, and one of the near impossible tasks with 144 players drafted.  I have no idea who was healthy, who missed a chunk of the season, etc.  I suspect I'd rank some teams downward if they were relying on guys who missed 15+ games, but I have no idea who those guys were.

Here's how I'm approaching Lanier -- he played 64 / 82 games that season. So you know you're going to be without him for 22% of the season. I'd assume that most players are going to get to 75-ish games and pick up a knock here or there, so it's really that you're missing an extra 11 games or 13% of the season. Material, but not like you're missing half the season without the guy. Then if we are really going to take it by the "year", you have to look at the playoffs and say "okay this guy was there for the playoffs and averaged 28 points a game in nearly 40 minutes." So clearly healthy. It looks like he basically missed the month of March and was otherwise fine.

So then you come back to Chicago. I thought the Daugherty pick was brilliant. In my opinion Daugherty is the best backup center in this league. Maybe behind 1-2 guys like Sikma but he's clearly starter-caliber and up there. I'd take him over a few of the starters. So for one month of the season your big man rotation goes down to Blake Griffin, Larry Nance, Brad Daugherty for 32 minutes a game each, or if you need to you can play Camby some spot minutes. I don't see any issue with that.

I love Serge Ibaka. But if Chicago had Serge rather than Daugherty then I'd be more concerned about that team. If it were Theo Ratliff I'd be more concerned about the team. For one month, though, you can live very happily with Brad Daugherty.

Plus then Daugherty and Nance get to run together again which was a fun IRL pairing.

You can't say the Lanier will play 64, and then say everyone else who played like 80+ are going to play 75. Lanier would also play less under that scenario i..e the month injury plus all the other games off.  You can't have it both ways. So if everyone else is playing 75 games, then Lanier is playing 57 games or whatever. Lanier missed too much time for him to be a starter in my view and I'm not sure how well he could integrate off the bench missing that much time.  That is why I struggled so much with him.  I'd have had the same issues with someone like Walton as well, though Walton was more talented and had greater peak success.

[theswitch]

The problem I had with Lanier is every eligible season, except 2 of the last 3 when he was a shell of himself, he basically missed 20 games every year.  He just wasn't healthy.  Now as a bench player, I suppose that isn't a big deal, but I had a really hard time projecting him as a starter when he couldn't stay on the floor.

That's a good point, and one of the near impossible tasks with 144 players drafted.  I have no idea who was healthy, who missed a chunk of the season, etc.  I suspect I'd rank some teams downward if they were relying on guys who missed 15+ games, but I have no idea who those guys were.

Here's how I'm approaching Lanier -- he played 64 / 82 games that season. So you know you're going to be without him for 22% of the season. I'd assume that most players are going to get to 75-ish games and pick up a knock here or there, so it's really that you're missing an extra 11 games or 13% of the season. Material, but not like you're missing half the season without the guy. Then if we are really going to take it by the "year", you have to look at the playoffs and say "okay this guy was there for the playoffs and averaged 28 points a game in nearly 40 minutes." So clearly healthy. It looks like he basically missed the month of March and was otherwise fine.

So then you come back to Chicago. I thought the Daugherty pick was brilliant. In my opinion Daugherty is the best backup center in this league. Maybe behind 1-2 guys like Sikma but he's clearly starter-caliber and up there. I'd take him over a few of the starters. So for one month of the season your big man rotation goes down to Blake Griffin, Larry Nance, Brad Daugherty for 32 minutes a game each, or if you need to you can play Camby some spot minutes. I don't see any issue with that.

I love Serge Ibaka. But if Chicago had Serge rather than Daugherty then I'd be more concerned about that team. If it were Theo Ratliff I'd be more concerned about the team. For one month, though, you can live very happily with Brad Daugherty.

Plus then Daugherty and Nance get to run together again which was a fun IRL pairing.

You can't say the Lanier will play 64, and then say everyone else who played like 80+ are going to play 75. Lanier would also play less under that scenario i..e the month injury plus all the other games off.  You can't have it both ways. So if everyone else is playing 75 games, then Lanier is playing 57 games or whatever. Lanier missed too much time for him to be a starter in my view and I'm not sure how well he could integrate off the bench missing that much time.  That is why I struggled so much with him.  I'd have had the same issues with someone like Walton as well, though Walton was more talented and had greater peak success.

I'm not sure I agree but either way, sure. Point still stands in my view that I'm fine rolling with Daugherty, Nance, Blake for a month. Fine group in the context of the overall team.

[Roy H.]

Brad Daugherty was good, but he's probably overrated a bit.  He was a pretty soft defender, and for his era, his rebounding was nothing special (only one season in the top-12 in rebounds per game).  He was a solid passer and a pretty good scorer (although, again, never in the top-12).  He also only made the playoffs five times.

He had a perfectly respectable career.  He's not a starter in this league, though, and he's not really one of the top backups.  I'd consider him more of a mid-range backup, on the same tier as Willis, Laimbeer and Sabonis and behind guys like Sampson, Issel, Cousins, and Sikma.  Hell, if I had one playoff series to win and had to pick between Daugherty or Bogut at their peak, I'd probably take Bogut.

[theswitch]

Brad Daugherty was good, but he's probably overrated a bit.  He was a pretty soft defender, and for his era, his rebounding was nothing special (only one season in the top-12 in rebounds per game).  He was a solid passer and a pretty good scorer (although, again, never in the top-12).  He also only made the playoffs five times.

He had a perfectly respectable career.  He's not a starter in this league, though, and he's not really one of the top backups.  I'd consider him more of a mid-range backup, on the same tier as Willis, Laimbeer and Sabonis and behind guys like Sampson, Issel, Cousins, and Sikma.  Hell, if I had one playoff series to win and had to pick between Daugherty or Bogut at their peak, I'd probably take Bogut.

Maybe overrating him a bit -- but 5 out of 8 (or functionally 5 out of 6 where he played more then 50 games) is a pretty darn good track record. Agreed on the defense. A little soft so you need a guy like Nance next to him.

What I like about Daugherty is his range and his passing ability -- 4.4 assists at his peak or 3.7 on average for his career -- is pretty darn good for a center. Kinda like Jack Sikma in that sense.

Maybe I rely a bit too much on some of the metrics for some of the older guys but 0.226 WS/48 at his peak is elite. DWS of 3.9+ is really good. So most of his career it seems like he was just fine but then those couple years with Price and/or Brandon plus Nance were really high quality years. The 0.226 year puts him 5th in the league behind Jordan, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem. Pretty cool company. 10th in BPM that year. 8th in VORP behind exclusively top 76 guys and ahead of a bunch of others.

So take it or leave it on the advanced metrics but that's an elite, elite peak by those numbers. Plus the playoff track record which I think is a strength versus a negative for him. Plus maybe what I value more than others do in this league re: spacing and passing which is why I drafted Gasol in the first place. All that makes me like Daugherty a lot.

[theswitch]

Toronto (theswitch):
PG: Penny Hardaway (95-96) / Fat Lever (87-88) / Terrell Brandon (95-96)
SG: Paul Westphal (78-79) / Paul Pressey (85-86)
SF: Marques Johnson (78-79) / Danny Granger (08-09)
PF: Jermaine O'Neal (03-04) / Bobby Jones (76-77) / Kiki VandeWeghe (82-83)
C: Marc Gasol (12-13) / Serge Ibaka (13-14)

I really like Marc Gasol, but I don't think he'll be as effective offensively in this league that has so many elite defensive centers.  I don't know much about your 2 wings, so can't really say much.  I think Serge is too small to be a backup center in this league.  He would struggle mightily matching up against the backup Cs like Sabonis, Sampson, Laimbeer, Bynum, and Cousins.

First off -- thank you so much for all of the thoughts on each team. The engagement is really appreciated!

I can't help but to comment quickly on my guys. It's tough when you subtract Westphal and Marques because those two are so important to the team. But anyways -- what I like about Gasol is that he's going to draw most of those elite centers out of the paint. His spacing and passing ability helps neutralize those centers in a different way. He doesn't need to beat them up. He won't be able to. But that's not really why he's there. Jermaine is going to be down low while Marc Gasol takes the Ben Wallace types out of the paint. Of course, if you put those guys on JO instead, then Marc will take advantage of your power forward with his size.

On Ibaka -- agree that it's probably situation-specific. If we're up against a guy who is just too beefy for Ibaka, then we'll lean more on JO and keep Ibaka as a 4. Play more Jones or Ibaka with Gasol to preserve JO to play center minutes where he's able to use his strength. I've made the argument elsewhere that not too many centers scare me in this league with their scoring / muscle so I don't see much of an issue with Jermaine in that role (or Ibaka, but for the sake of argument I'll assume he can't as you suggest).

[Roy H.]

Brad Daugherty was good, but he's probably overrated a bit.  He was a pretty soft defender, and for his era, his rebounding was nothing special (only one season in the top-12 in rebounds per game).  He was a solid passer and a pretty good scorer (although, again, never in the top-12).  He also only made the playoffs five times.

He had a perfectly respectable career.  He's not a starter in this league, though, and he's not really one of the top backups.  I'd consider him more of a mid-range backup, on the same tier as Willis, Laimbeer and Sabonis and behind guys like Sampson, Issel, Cousins, and Sikma.  Hell, if I had one playoff series to win and had to pick between Daugherty or Bogut at their peak, I'd probably take Bogut.

Maybe overrating him a bit -- but 5 out of 8 (or functionally 5 out of 6 where he played more then 50 games) is a pretty darn good track record. Agreed on the defense. A little soft so you need a guy like Nance next to him.

What I like about Daugherty is his range and his passing ability -- 4.4 assists at his peak or 3.7 on average for his career -- is pretty darn good for a center. Kinda like Jack Sikma in that sense.

Maybe I rely a bit too much on some of the metrics for some of the older guys but 0.226 WS/48 at his peak is elite. DWS of 3.9+ is really good. So most of his career it seems like he was just fine but then those couple years with Price and/or Brandon plus Nance were really high quality years. The 0.226 year puts him 5th in the league behind Jordan, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem. Pretty cool company. 10th in BPM that year. 8th in VORP behind exclusively top 76 guys and ahead of a bunch of others.

So take it or leave it on the advanced metrics but that's an elite, elite peak by those numbers. Plus the playoff track record which I think is a strength versus a negative for him. Plus maybe what I value more than others do in this league re: spacing and passing which is why I drafted Gasol in the first place. All that makes me like Daugherty a lot.

I think you do.  I think WS, BPM and VORP are essentially garbage.

I wish I didn't, because my team ranks well.  For instance, in 2006, Elton Brand was 6th in VORP, behind only Lebron, Kobe, Dirk, KG and Wade.  Also in 2006, Brand, Manu and Kirilenko finished 6th, 7th and 8th in BPM.   Manu was 5th and Brand was 7th in WS/48.

Andre Iguodala:  among *all* active players as of last season, he ranks 11th in win shares, 3rd in defensive win shares, and 14th in VORP.

In the year I actually picked for Manu:  2nd in WS/48.  Guy was a superstar.  4th in BPM.  Across multiple seasons, he was a top-5 guy in the NBA.

These are the arguments I'd spend days and weeks making back in the CB Draft days.  But, while I do believe Manu was a superstar, I simply think the advanced metrics are too wonky to tell us a lot.

[gouki88]

Orlando Magic (gouki88):
PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Love the 1-3, but Webber as a center?  In this league?  I'd start Sampson at the 5.  Overall, one of the best (if not the best) passing teams in this league so far.

Thanks for taking all the time to do this!

I'm not really worried at all about Webber at the 5 spot. At 6'10 and 260lbs with a good wingspan, he has the size, athleticism and understanding to deal with most of the opposing bigs. There are situations where Sampson may start, but Cummings is simply the better player. I also think Webber at the 5 is more of an issue for opposing big men. How many of the 5s in this league can stay with Webber outside the paint?

[Moranis]

Brooklyn (Moranis):
PG: Maurice Cheeks / Don Buse
SG: Drazen Petrovic / Rip Hamilton
SF: Adrian Dantley / Bruce Bowen / Jim Jackson
PF: Amare Stoudemire / George McGinnis / Dan Roundfield
C: Pau Gasol / Dan Issel

Bummer that I just don't know Mo and Drazen's games, because I potentially love the 4/5 pairing here, but how it works depends a lot on the guard play.  Amare + Pau would be a great big pairing for a modern day horns offense.

In my write up, I basically described a modified horns offense.  In some instances, I might even put Pau out where the SF normally would play with Dantley next to Amare.  But that is sort of the intent, lots of high/low post play off the bigs (and AD), with cuts and screens, with a lot of midrange and post baskets. Cheeks would mainly be initiating the offense and Drazen just moving around the perimeter waiting to get an open look or cutting for an easy lay up. 

[Who]

Orlando Magic (gouki88):
PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Love the 1-3, but Webber as a center?  In this league?  I'd start Sampson at the 5.  Overall, one of the best (if not the best) passing teams in this league so far.

Thanks for taking all the time to do this!

I'm not really worried at all about Webber at the 5 spot. At 6'10 and 260lbs with a good wingspan, he has the size, athleticism and understanding to deal with most of the opposing bigs. There are situations where Sampson may start, but Cummings is simply the better player. I also think Webber at the 5 is more of an issue for opposing big men. How many of the 5s in this league can stay with Webber outside the paint?

I thought Sampson's lack of bulk was a bigger issue in matching up against opposing centers than Webber's lack of height.

When defending the power & interior scoring of Alonzo, Lanier, Yao, Artis, Dwight ... I believe Webber would do a better job of combatting them than Sampson would.