2023 CS Historic Draft - How's My Team?

[Who]

Chris Webber is essentially the same size as Alonzo (half an inch for Zo) and Dwight. Webber is 260lbs. All three are taller than Ben Wallace.

Webber started at center as a rookie for Golden State. He did well there. He matched up against all the top centers of that era. Hakeem, D-Rob, Ewing, Shaq, Zo, Mutombo.

When Webber went to Washington, he started at PF but played C when Muresan went to the bench. They slid Webber up to center and played Juwan Howard at PF alongside a shooter at SF in Tracy Murray. I thought that was their most effective lineup. They finally had spacing, ball & player movement. Everything was so stagnant with Muresan clogging up the paint on offense. Rod Strickland suddenly had far more space to drive and create. They were very difficult to play against.

Webber played less center in Sacramento. They usually had two good centers there during his tenure in Sac-town. They had Vlade & Pollard, then Vlade & Keon Clark, then Vlade & Brad Miller (I thought he might get drafted late on, skilled high post center). Still, Webber had time defensively against Shaq & Duncan in the low post. His bulk / strength and length made him an effective defensive option against them.

[action781]

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.

I think they'll both have issues there.  I might just be incorrectly recalling Webber's defense, but it is what it is.  I just remember him as such a prototypically awesome 4 on those Kings teams, it's hard for me to envision him optimally elsewhere.  But what Webber can bring on offense as an elite passer out of the high/low post would be incredibly valuable, so I can get behind it a little more.

[action781]

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

I'm not sure that AD had the higher peak.  Sure AD won his title as a key contributor while Dwight was a role player for his.  But Dwight took his team farther as a #1 than AD ever did.  Hard to argue against Who's claim that Dwight was potentially #3 in the world at one point, something that AD has probably never quite been.  I think they were both top 5 players in their primes.  I'd give Dwight the slight edge.

[action781]

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).

Nice, I like that explanation of Gasol drawing opposing rim protectors out of the paint and never thought of it that way.  So you look at JO/Gasol a lot like the Z-Bo/Gasol pairing.  Somebody's gonna get the chance to feast down low.  Both can stretch the floor for the other.  I think that worked better in a 30-team NBA where just about every team would have 1 weak link at the 4/5.  I think you won't be able to do that against every team here though, like Washington and Chicago to name a couple.  But at least JO/Gasol can still open up the floor for your wings to operate, which I do like.

[Kernewek]

Loving all the discussion - should have time to type up my novel tonight, if there's still time before we... vote?

[smokeablount]

I thought Bob Lanier was a huge steal for Chicago and I love how he fits on that team.

...

This is why I think Chicago are the top team in the draft. I love their starting lineup.

Thanks so much Who for the kind words.

I wish I had your ability to break down players and evaluate fit like you did above so I could describe other peoples teams.

I tried to draft players who I thought would mesh well together and I paid a premium for star power and multi-faceted offense, believing that I could find defense and high quality specialists in the later rounds. I'm very happy with my starters, believe I have starting caliber guys and elite 3+D low usage wing specialists as the next 5 guys off my bench.

What I love about your team Who, and a reason I have you ranked so highly as I've mentioned previously, is the star power you assembled and the excellent top end talent and depth you have at PG, SF, and C. Looking at historic title teams, it's usually true that having top players at a blend of different positions results in the best outcomes. It has been better to have your top 2 players be a big and a wing, or guard/wing, guard/big, etc.

I love the balance of this team with King at SF (Dandridge backing him up), Alonzo at C (Sikma backing him up), and PG with KJ (and Gus Williams backing him up). King is a powerhouse and an alpha in this league, I gave him a mid first round grade. I had to decide between him and Thompson at #20 and it was a hard choice. Dandridge is a winning player and super underrated, he's a force multiplier and plays great with other stars, particularly bigs like this team has. I love him as a chance of pace SF.

Mourning as a 2-way force was a guy i underrated here. The more I thought about it, the more I liked him just as much as Dwight as a first round guy. Elite at D, and versatile on offense. He and King are both 1st round guys. Sikma backing up AM is incredible, Sikma in '82 was a beast and that's a clear starting caliber center year.

KJ/Gus at PG is a lethal combo. KJ as a top 3 PG in the league and Gus as a multi time all star and title winner, starting caliber PG to come off the bench.

I like the fit of the SGs and PFs around these guys. You waited on PF but grabbed three, and have 3 SGs to suit your needs as well. As expected, the fit of the overall team is excellent and transcends the pieces' individual talent.

And thanks to you as well for commenting on other teams and forwarding the discussion. Both you and Switch helped resurrect the thread.

[smokeablount]

Sorry all, been a bit unwell and haven't put much thought into timelines for wrapping this up. Will have a think about it today

No worries Gouk, take your time and hope you are feeling better.

[Roy H.]

I tried to draft players who I thought would mesh well together and I paid a premium for star power and multi-faceted offense, believing that I could find defense and high quality specialists in the later rounds. I'm very happy with my starters, believe I have starting caliber guys and elite 3+D low usage wing specialists as the next 5 guys off my bench.

In terms of "star power"...  does that equate to winning? 

PG: Deron Williams 07-08 / M.R. Richardson 80-81 / J. Wall 16-17
SG: David Thompson 77-78 / Hersey Hawkins 96-97
SF: Tracy McGrady 02-03 / Tayshaun Prince 06-07
PF: Larry Nance Sr 91-92 / Blake Griffin 13-14
C: Bob Lanier 76-77 / Brad Daugherty 92-93 / M. Camby 06-07

I'm a big believer that it takes more than simply talent to win.  To me, I see McGrady as the consummate loser, and you don't have any other guys who add that winning element other than Prince. 

That's obviously subjective, but in deciding between close rosters, rings matter to me.  It's one of the reasons why I rate Utah quite highly, despite not loving a few of the guys.

[theswitch]

I tried to draft players who I thought would mesh well together and I paid a premium for star power and multi-faceted offense, believing that I could find defense and high quality specialists in the later rounds. I'm very happy with my starters, believe I have starting caliber guys and elite 3+D low usage wing specialists as the next 5 guys off my bench.

In terms of "star power"...  does that equate to winning? 

PG: Deron Williams 07-08 / M.R. Richardson 80-81 / J. Wall 16-17
SG: David Thompson 77-78 / Hersey Hawkins 96-97
SF: Tracy McGrady 02-03 / Tayshaun Prince 06-07
PF: Larry Nance Sr 91-92 / Blake Griffin 13-14
C: Bob Lanier 76-77 / Brad Daugherty 92-93 / M. Camby 06-07

I'm a big believer that it takes more than simply talent to win.  To me, I see McGrady as the consummate loser, and you don't have any other guys who add that winning element other than Prince. 

That's obviously subjective, but in deciding between close rosters, rings matter to me.  It's one of the reasons why I rate Utah quite highly, despite not loving a few of the guys.

To me, the ring thing in this exercise is a little overblown. E.g., on Utah I'd agree that Parker is a "winner" and Bosh obviously won but it's not like Bosh was the driving force for those rings. There are probably only a few starters in this draft who really were a top 2-3 reason why their team won a ring (off the top of my head, Parker, Billups, DJ, Wallace, Sheed, Dumars, kind of Cheeks, Pau Gasol, Manu, Iguodala, Marion). Probably a few more in the backups. The reality is that most rings outside of a few teams (from the above, if you take out Spurs and Pistons the list gets cut in half) are top 76 player driven.

I do value team and playoff success and do rate McGrady lower because of that. But some of the others -- Deron Williams got to the WCF once and WCS twice. Thompson got to the WCF. Nance got to the WCF as a core contributor, and the ECF as well (with Daugherty). Lanier had some success. So I don't look at that team and think they're a bunch of bums.

Similar to my team -- Penny, Westphal, Marques, Jermaine, Gasol all proved they can be the best or second-best player on a team that either gets to the conference finals or NBA finals. I'm not going to dock a guy like Penny because he ran into the 1996 Bulls, or Westphal because he lost in triple OT to the 1976 Celtics.

[smokeablount]

I tried to draft players who I thought would mesh well together and I paid a premium for star power and multi-faceted offense, believing that I could find defense and high quality specialists in the later rounds. I'm very happy with my starters, believe I have starting caliber guys and elite 3+D low usage wing specialists as the next 5 guys off my bench.

In terms of "star power"...  does that equate to winning? 

PG: Deron Williams 07-08 / M.R. Richardson 80-81 / J. Wall 16-17
SG: David Thompson 77-78 / Hersey Hawkins 96-97
SF: Tracy McGrady 02-03 / Tayshaun Prince 06-07
PF: Larry Nance Sr 91-92 / Blake Griffin 13-14
C: Bob Lanier 76-77 / Brad Daugherty 92-93 / M. Camby 06-07

I'm a big believer that it takes more than simply talent to win.  To me, I see McGrady as the consummate loser, and you don't have any other guys who add that winning element other than Prince. 

That's obviously subjective, but in deciding between close rosters, rings matter to me.  It's one of the reasons why I rate Utah quite highly, despite not loving a few of the guys.

Rings matter, but I’d still rather have Barkley than Robert Horry.

The winners on your team weren’t the primary reason those teams won titles. Iggy had Curry and Klay and Draymond, Manu had Duncan and Parker. Both of those guys had top 10 all time players on their team. That’s the reason they’re what you consider winners.

I prioritized talent because I wanted the Duncan’s and Curry’s of this league, the primary drivers of the outcome of winning. Bosh is a “winner” because of Miami. If he stayed in Toronto, he’d be a “loser.”

If you put any of your players on the 02-03 Magic in place of McGrady, which he led to the playoffs, they’d be a lottery team. The other top 4 players in minutes were Gordon Giricek, Pat Garrity and Mike Miller. There is no one on your team that does better with that than McGrady.

The guys you label as winners attached themselves to the top talent. So I went after the top talent. That’s what wins in the NBA.

I think you value “situational winning” way too much. Tim Duncan and Steph Curry aren’t following Manu and Iggy to your team.

[Roy H.]

I tried to draft players who I thought would mesh well together and I paid a premium for star power and multi-faceted offense, believing that I could find defense and high quality specialists in the later rounds. I'm very happy with my starters, believe I have starting caliber guys and elite 3+D low usage wing specialists as the next 5 guys off my bench.

In terms of "star power"...  does that equate to winning? 

PG: Deron Williams 07-08 / M.R. Richardson 80-81 / J. Wall 16-17
SG: David Thompson 77-78 / Hersey Hawkins 96-97
SF: Tracy McGrady 02-03 / Tayshaun Prince 06-07
PF: Larry Nance Sr 91-92 / Blake Griffin 13-14
C: Bob Lanier 76-77 / Brad Daugherty 92-93 / M. Camby 06-07

I'm a big believer that it takes more than simply talent to win.  To me, I see McGrady as the consummate loser, and you don't have any other guys who add that winning element other than Prince. 

That's obviously subjective, but in deciding between close rosters, rings matter to me.  It's one of the reasons why I rate Utah quite highly, despite not loving a few of the guys.

Rings matter, but I’d still rather have Barkley than Robert Horry.

The winners on your team weren’t the primary reason those teams won titles. Iggy had Curry and Klay and Draymond, Manu had Duncan and Parker. Both of those guys had top 10 all time players on their team. That’s the reason they’re what you consider winners.

I prioritized talent because I wanted the Duncan’s and Curry’s of this league, the primary drivers of the outcome of winning. Bosh is a “winner” because of Miami. If he stayed in Toronto, he’d be a “loser.”

If you put any of your players on the 02-03 Magic in place of McGrady, which he led to the playoffs, they’d be a lottery team. The other top 4 players in minutes were Gordon Giricek, Pat Garrity and Mike Miller. There is no one on your team that does better with that than McGrady.

The guys you label as winners attached themselves to the top talent. So I went after the top talent. That’s what wins in the NBA.

I think you value “situational winning” way too much. Tim Duncan and Steph Curry aren’t following Manu and Iggy to your team.

I just disagree.  TMac was a career loser.  Losing every single first round series he played in as a rotation player isn't a coincidence.  It's not like TMac was Karl Malone, who reached the mountain top and found Michael Jordan and Scotty Pippen sitting there.

And, Manu was a key cog in four title teams.  There's no need to be salty about that.  Iguodala won Finals MVP.  Both showed an ability to take a back seat from being "the man" to doing the little things needed to win.  It's just in their character makeup.  It wasn't in TMac's.  He was a guy who ran from the spotlight and ran from hard work.  To call T-Mac a "driver of winning" is sort of laughable, isn't it?

T-Mac's career NBA playoff record: 15-29 (.341 winning percentage) (not counting time as a scrub in SA)

Thompson's career NBA playoff record: 8-13 (.381 winning percentage)

Assuming brain ("heart") transplants aren't allowed, I'm taking Ginobili 100 times out of 100 over a guy like T-Mac.

[smokeablount]

TMac was the best player on those teams and a top 6 MVP finisher for 3 years in a row.

David Thompson was the best player on those teams and they made the WCF.

Deron Williams was the best player, WCF.

Lanier was the best, 1st/2nd round.

4 of my starters were the best players on their teams and consistently made the playoffs.

Tell me, who on your roster was the best player on their team?

Looking at only those guys, since high end talent trumps all (just look at how well teams without a top 5 MVP finisher do)- what were just those guys records in the playoffs?

[Moranis]

The Magic were 41-41 the year before McGrady and Hill.  The 4 years with TMac they won 43, 44, 42, and 21 games.  That 21 game season, with McGrady led to Dwight. They won 36 games in Dwight's rookie year (with Hill and Francis). In Dwight's 5th year they won 59 and were in the Finals improving every year to that point.  Dwight = winner.  TMac not so much.  Also, the Rockets were a 45 win team before McGrady, he bumped them a whooping 6 games up to 51 wins. Injuries the next year led to 34 wins. They got as high as 55, but never out of the 1st round. Heck McGrady's last full season he got hurt and played just 35 games, the team won 53 and made the 2nd round without him and without replacing him. They just didn't have him available and they won a playoff series.  And Toronto in the season after he left had the most wins in franchise history to that point and made the 2nd round.  All it took was the loser McGrady to leave.

There is not a bigger loser in the entire history of the sport than McGrady.  He had 3 different situations, playing with HOFers in each stop and couldn't even get out of the 1st round. The teams got better almost immediately after he left (or in Houston's case when he got hurt).

[smokeablount]

The Magic were 41-41 the year before McGrady and Hill.  The 4 years with TMac they won 43, 44, 42, and 21 games.  That 21 game season, with McGrady led to Dwight. They won 36 games in Dwight's rookie year (with Hill and Francis). In Dwight's 5th year they won 59 and were in the Finals improving every year to that point.  Dwight = winner.  TMac not so much.  Also, the Rockets were a 45 win team before McGrady, he bumped them a whooping 6 games up to 51 wins. Injuries the next year led to 34 wins. They got as high as 55, but never out of the 1st round. Heck McGrady's last full season he got hurt and played just 35 games, the team won 53 and made the 2nd round without him and without replacing him. They just didn't have him available and they won a playoff series.  And Toronto in the season after he left had the most wins in franchise history to that point and made the 2nd round.  All it took was the loser McGrady to leave.

There is not a bigger loser in the entire history of the sport than McGrady.  He had 3 different situations, playing with HOFers in each stop and couldn't even get out of the 1st round. The teams got better almost immediately after he left (or in Houston's case when he got hurt).

You and Roy don't like McGrady. Fair. Plenty of posters whose opinions are equally astute think McGrady is a powerhouse in this league.

They recognize that if you remove all the top 75 guys, suddenly most of the guys who reduced McGrady to a 1st round exit are gone. The 3-5 guys ahead of McGrady in MVP voting those 3 years? Gone. Who is left?

Well, your best guy is Pau Gasol, who didn't do anything more than McGrady did until he hitched himself to a top 15 player. Your 2nd pick was Amare, he wasn't the best player on his teams ever, it was Nash and Melo, and those teams did equal/worse than Thompson's, who in fact was the best player on his team.

My team also isn't overly reliant on McGrady. Several posters have said I have a top bench in the league. As previously mentioned, I've got 3 starters who were the best player on a WCF, a WCF, and a 1st/2nd round team. And then front court bench players who aren't far off from your starters. Blake #3 in MVP, Brad D top 11 in MVP 3 years in a row.

So feel free to denigrate McGrady. Other posters will see you don't have anyone better, and I'm very happy with my #2 thru #12. 

[smokeablount]

There is not a bigger loser in the entire history of the sport than McGrady.  He had 3 different situations, playing with HOFers in each stop and couldn't even get out of the 1st round.

This is classic Moranis. Trust Moranis's data at your own risk.

Which HOF'er did he 'play with' in Orlando? Are you referring to Grant Hill, who played in his 4 years with McGrady played:

4 out of 82 games
14 out of 82 games
29 out of 82 games
0 out of 82 games

Or are you counting Patrick Ewing's last year in which he put up 6 / 3 ?

Did you wanna review Yao's health records as well?

It is even more classic Moranis to use players that missed 78 games as evidence that McGrady couldn't win with HOFers on his team, and then...

In the same thread, say we can't trust Bob Lanier for missing 20 games and dropping 28-14 in the playoffs.