2025 CB Historical Draft - Player Analysis

[Who]

I do know if there is interest in this topic but I thought it would be interesting to have a thread devoted to individual player analysis who were picked in this draft. How people viewed / rated different players. Particularly players who are more polarizing.

Some suggestions:

* Luka Doncic, James Harden
* Slow mid 00s centers like Shaq, Yao
* offensive PGs like Nash, Steph, Lillard
* no offense centers like Gobert, Big Ben
* McGrady, Vince
* Porzingis, Wemby
* Jokic - how his value differs on super-team vs reg team
* Duncan - I might be alone on this one
* Kobe
* Comparison of Tatum, PG13, Pierce, Jimmy B
* Comparison of Ray, Klay, Ant, B Roy, Manu

Whatever other names pique people's interest. Or wish to get a broader view of how others valued them in the draft.

Not intended to attack or defend a guy. Just how you viewed that player in the draft. To see the differences in how people think about different players.

[Who]

Okay, I am going to do a Tim Duncan one.

In those Duncan vs KG debates I felt the main advantages Duncan had over KG were (1) prototypical big man vs unorthodox big man (2) Duncan more willing to be go-to scorer in the low post.

I find Duncan's scoring interesting. He lacks the overwhelming athletic advantages of other stars. The insane quickness, agility and athleticism of a Hakeem Olajuwon. The overwhelming size and power of Shaq. The height, length and grace of Kareem to play over the top with his sky-hook. Or a speedy athletic PF like Giannis. Duncan never had those gifts.

Instead, Duncan relied on having a versatile offensive arsenal. I always think of one the Lakers playoff games in the early 00s. Doug Collins was commentator. Duncan had something like 40pts in this game. Collins points out how every basket Duncan made was different. Different spots. Different moves. That is how Duncan was able to be so effective. He lacked the overwhelming physical advantage to constantly do the same thing (like Shaq or Kareem) but made up for it with versatility. That gave him scoring resilience. Allowed him to be consistent against a variety of defenders.

Okay ...

So back to a draft like this. I wonder about 2 things with Duncan.

(1) go-to scoring = I don't think his go-to scoring is efficient enough / effective enough to demand the ball as often in this setting as on his regular Spurs teams. I see him more as a facilitator who scores within the flow of the offense while creating space for others. More similar to how Duncan played in 2010-15 when the offense ran through T Parker and Ginobili than in 2000-05 when it ran through Duncan in the post. Only with a younger more athletic Timmy.

(2) Defensive quality of opponents. I think the opponents can bother Timmy's offense more than others. I do not see him as a top tier scorer. Like I said above, the lack of elite athleticism. Top defenders could bother Timmy more than they could bother a Shaq. So in a setting like this where Timmy has to play huge centers like Shaq, Yao, or Marc Gasol. Even Jokic. Or top defenders like Dwight, Big Ben, the length of Gobert. I don't think Timmy can create offense / shot creation as well as he could in the regular NBA.

So I view Duncan as losing a good chunk of that go-to scoring advanage he had. I thought that advantage elevated him over the other stars of his era. Like Roy said in one his posts during the draft, Timmy was the best player of his era. Not KG. Not Kobe. Timmy was. I agree with that. But I also think he loses some of that edge in this type of setting.

I still had Duncan rated as my top center in this draft due to his all-round game and his value as an anchor / facilitator. The defense, rebounding, passing, midrange scoring, interior scoring. But I didn't value him as the clear cut best player of his era. I thought he would lose some of the edge his scoring gave him in the real NBA compared to the competition he would face in this Historical League.

[Celtic Fan Forever]

Okay, I am going to do a Tim Duncan one.

In those Duncan vs KG debates I felt the main advantages Duncan had over KG were (1) prototypical big man vs unorthodox big man (2) Duncan more willing to be go-to scorer in the low post.

I find Duncan's scoring interesting. He lacks the overwhelming athletic advantages of other stars. The insane quickness, agility and athleticism of a Hakeem Olajuwon. The overwhelming size and power of Shaq. The height, length and grace of Kareem to play over the top with his sky-hook. Or a speedy athletic PF like Giannis. Duncan never had those gifts.

Instead, Duncan relied on having a versatile offensive arsenal. I always think of one the Lakers playoff games in the early 00s. Doug Collins was commentator. Duncan had something like 40pts in this game. Collins points out how every basket Duncan made was different. Different spots. Different moves. That is how Duncan was able to be so effective. He lacked the overwhelming physical advantage to constantly do the same thing (like Shaq or Kareem) but made up for it with versatility. That gave him scoring resilience. Allowed him to be consistent against a variety of defenders.

Okay ...

So back to a draft like this. I wonder about 2 things with Duncan.

(1) go-to scoring = I don't think his go-to scoring is efficient enough / effective enough to demand the ball as often in this setting as on his regular Spurs teams. I see him more as a facilitator who scores within the flow of the offense while creating space for others. More similar to how Duncan played in 2010-15 when the offense ran through T Parker and Ginobili than in 2000-05 when it ran through Duncan in the post. Only with a younger more athletic Timmy.

(2) Defensive quality of opponents. I think the opponents can bother Timmy's offense more than others. I do not see him as a top tier scorer. Like I said above, the lack of elite athleticism. Top defenders could bother Timmy more than they could bother a Shaq. So in a setting like this where Timmy has to play huge centers like Shaq, Yao, or Marc Gasol. Even Jokic. Or top defenders like Dwight, Big Ben, the length of Gobert. I don't think Timmy can create offense / shot creation as well as he could in the regular NBA.

So I view Duncan as losing a good chunk of that go-to scoring advanage he had. I thought that advantage elevated him over the other stars of his era. Like Roy said in one his posts during the draft, Timmy was the best player of his era. Not KG. Not Kobe. Timmy was. I agree with that. But I also think he loses some of that edge in this type of setting.

I still had Duncan rated as my top center in this draft due to his all-round game and his value as an anchor / facilitator. The defense, rebounding, passing, midrange scoring, interior scoring. But I didn't value him as the clear cut best player of his era. I thought he would lose some of the edge his scoring gave him in the real NBA compared to the competition he would face in this Historical League.

TP, Who, for the great analysis as always. This was the first time I ever took Timmy in one of these. And while ideally I would have wanted the 2003 version of him, I was still happy to build around him because of his leadership, two way impact, and selflessness. I thought he was the perfect guy to pair with any type of players around him and someone I would not have to worry about needing touches. I strongly considered Curry or Jokic, knowing Lebron would likely be the 1st overall pick. But at the end of the day I wanted the anchor on defense rather than the game changing offense, as I felt I could get more of that later on.

I hear your concern regarding Timmy getting his offensively in a league like this. But I would never need a 30-40 point explosion with him. Between the scoring of Pierce, Ray, Chris Paul, and even Bosh would be enough. I think the versatility of Duncan on both ends, and his ability to flawlessly play off other stars and do the little things- screening, rebounding, communication- made him the perfect guy to build around in any exercise.

[Donoghus]

To me, guys like Duncan, Lebron, Jokic, Dirk, & KG are pretty flawless in these things.  You have one of those guys and you're sitting golden to start.

[Who]

Luka Doncic was a player I had trouble valuing.

Offense

I believe a lot of his value comes from being able to shoulder such a large chunk of the offense. To be a 30ppg 10apg threat. But in a setting like this, you do not need a player to shoulder as much.

Moreover, Luka is one of the most ball-dominant players I have ever seen. In a setting like this, how does he function with other stars? There is a lack of opportunities to see him on a team full of stars. At least with American players you can see them on Team USA in a competitive setting. Get an idea of how well they adapt to that. For Luka, he plays for Slovenia and plays the same high usage role he has in the NBA.

The only other opportunity is All-Star games. Present day ASGs are garbage and a bad example. Ones in the past were not a perfect illustration of how a player would do but they were a lot better than today's ASGs. More like a real basketball game. Even with that, what have we seen from Luka in ASGs? Nothing much. His game doesn't translate well to them. 7ppg 5.5apg in 23.5mpg 41% shooting 29% 3PT%. For a perennial MVP candidate, Luka has never given us a dominant All-Star showing. 

The other issue with Luka's offense is that he can shoulder large amounts and provide good offense while shoulder the load. But he doesn't provide great offense / high efficiency offense. His TS% was usually slightly above average. According to Bref.com his TS average is 101-106 vs league average of 100 for last 6 years. High efficiency guys are up in the 110-120 range. Guys like Durant or Steph. Luka's value over them is not his efficiency but that he shoulder an even larger chunk of the offense than those guys can. He can do more. Not as efficiently but more of it. That is less of an asset in this type of a setting where everyone can score / create.

Defense

Then there is the defense. Luka is likely the worst defensive SF in the draft. He can't defend guards. He is too slow. He could defend some of the PFs but not others. Maybe half of them.

--------------

I am curious how others thought of Luka in this draft. I know Roy was high on him. I think Luka was his #6 overall guy (why?). How did others value Luka and why?

[snively]

I shared some of Who's concerns about Luka but I really liked his size and bulk in this league. One thing I thought would be different in this league is size.  Teams would be bigger,  longer, and thus more physical. You wouldn't be able to get away with small ball. And I think Luka is better adapted to this kind of league.  Teams will play slower to accommodate the amount of offensive skill in the frontcourt. My issues with him on Mo's team was the scarcity of touches.

It's also why I wasn't as high on SGA (tho I still would have taken him over Kobe). I thought his lack of physical bulk and strength made him less suited to this league. That he would get beaten up and not hold up as the #1 option.

[snively]

My favorite guy in this draft was Kawhi. Would have been tempted to take him #1. So good and versatile and committed defensively.  A super efficient scorer spotting up, coming off curls and in isolation. His big shortcoming - playmaking for others - I thought was a borderline positive in this league because it opened up a lot of opportunities for other stars. I also loved having his 2-way game against the most difficult match ups in this league - LeBron and KD. Someone who could make their lives difficult offensively and force them to play D.

I was very excited for the Wade/Kawhi duo. Wade as unstoppable explosive speed and power and playmaking and Kawhi next to him as the Terminator. Would have loved that as my foundation

[Moranis]

Luka Doncic was a player I had trouble valuing.

Offense

I believe a lot of his value comes from being able to shoulder such a large chunk of the offense. To be a 30ppg 10apg threat. But in a setting like this, you do not need a player to shoulder as much.

Moreover, Luka is one of the most ball-dominant players I have ever seen. In a setting like this, how does he function with other stars? There is a lack of opportunities to see him on a team full of stars. At least with American players you can see them on Team USA in a competitive setting. Get an idea of how well they adapt to that. For Luka, he plays for Slovenia and plays the same high usage role he has in the NBA.

The only other opportunity is All-Star games. Present day ASGs are garbage and a bad example. Ones in the past were not a perfect illustration of how a player would do but they were a lot better than today's ASGs. More like a real basketball game. Even with that, what have we seen from Luka in ASGs? Nothing much. His game doesn't translate well to them. 7ppg 5.5apg in 23.5mpg 41% shooting 29% 3PT%. For a perennial MVP candidate, Luka has never given us a dominant All-Star showing. 

The other issue with Luka's offense is that he can shoulder large amounts and provide good offense while shoulder the load. But he doesn't provide great offense / high efficiency offense. His TS% was usually slightly above average. According to Bref.com his TS average is 101-106 vs league average of 100 for last 6 years. High efficiency guys are up in the 110-120 range. Guys like Durant or Steph. Luka's value over them is not his efficiency but that he shoulder an even larger chunk of the offense than those guys can. He can do more. Not as efficiently but more of it. That is less of an asset in this type of a setting where everyone can score / create.

Defense

Then there is the defense. Luka is likely the worst defensive SF in the draft. He can't defend guards. He is too slow. He could defend some of the PFs but not others. Maybe half of them.

--------------

I am curious how others thought of Luka in this draft. I know Roy was high on him. I think Luka was his #6 overall guy (why?). How did others value Luka and why?

Luka has always played well on every team he has been on.  Whether he was a minor playing at the highest level in Europe, for his national team, or a team with ball dominant players like Brunson, Kyrie, and even Lebron.  He is an incredibly smart player.  Those guys always find a way to make it work.  That is why I had no issue taking him with the 20th or 21st pick, even when already having a guy like Lebron. 

And I just don't buy the touches argument in these sorts of setting, because every single team has a touches problem.  I also find there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in these things.  I mean we know for a fact that KG, PP, and Ray all chased away players or left teams because they had to share the spotlight and touches with other players.  Had those 3 come together in their mid-20's, it wouldn't have worked.  It was only after all of the team failures that they put the ego aside and made it work.  Yet, they are never thought of that way when these teams are put together.  They are just given the benefit of making it work in their 20's when it simply wouldn't have.

[Who]

And I just don't buy the touches argument in these sorts of setting, because every single team has a touches problem.  I also find there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in these things.  I mean we know for a fact that KG, PP, and Ray all chased away players or left teams because they had to share the spotlight and touches with other players.  Had those 3 come together in their mid-20's, it wouldn't have worked.  It was only after all of the team failures that they put the ego aside and made it work.  Yet, they are never thought of that way when these teams are put together.  They are just given the benefit of making it work in their 20's when it simply wouldn't have.

Let's ignore Luka ... you don't think some players have more problems than other players?

[Who]

Luka Doncic was a player I had trouble valuing.

Offense

I believe a lot of his value comes from being able to shoulder such a large chunk of the offense. To be a 30ppg 10apg threat. But in a setting like this, you do not need a player to shoulder as much.

Moreover, Luka is one of the most ball-dominant players I have ever seen. In a setting like this, how does he function with other stars? There is a lack of opportunities to see him on a team full of stars. At least with American players you can see them on Team USA in a competitive setting. Get an idea of how well they adapt to that. For Luka, he plays for Slovenia and plays the same high usage role he has in the NBA.

The only other opportunity is All-Star games. Present day ASGs are garbage and a bad example. Ones in the past were not a perfect illustration of how a player would do but they were a lot better than today's ASGs. More like a real basketball game. Even with that, what have we seen from Luka in ASGs? Nothing much. His game doesn't translate well to them. 7ppg 5.5apg in 23.5mpg 41% shooting 29% 3PT%. For a perennial MVP candidate, Luka has never given us a dominant All-Star showing. 

The other issue with Luka's offense is that he can shoulder large amounts and provide good offense while shoulder the load. But he doesn't provide great offense / high efficiency offense. His TS% was usually slightly above average. According to Bref.com his TS average is 101-106 vs league average of 100 for last 6 years. High efficiency guys are up in the 110-120 range. Guys like Durant or Steph. Luka's value over them is not his efficiency but that he shoulder an even larger chunk of the offense than those guys can. He can do more. Not as efficiently but more of it. That is less of an asset in this type of a setting where everyone can score / create.

Defense

Then there is the defense. Luka is likely the worst defensive SF in the draft. He can't defend guards. He is too slow. He could defend some of the PFs but not others. Maybe half of them.

--------------

I am curious how others thought of Luka in this draft. I know Roy was high on him. I think Luka was his #6 overall guy (why?). How did others value Luka and why?

Luka has always played well on every team he has been on.  Whether he was a minor playing at the highest level in Europe, for his national team, or a team with ball dominant players like Brunson, Kyrie, and even Lebron.  He is an incredibly smart player.  Those guys always find a way to make it work.  That is why I had no issue taking him with the 20th or 21st pick, even when already having a guy like Lebron. 

Going back to Luka, I have 2 separate lines of thought here:

(1) Offensive Load

Luka gains a lot of value in the real NBA by being able to shoulder a huge amount of the offense. 28-34ppg and 8.5-10.0apg is tough to do. He has been consistently there for 6 years now. 30ppg 8.8rpg 8.7apg over that period.

Luka provides a lot of offensive value because (1) his shot-creation is better than the alternatives (role players) (2) he creates higher percentage shots for role players, open shots. Even though his TS% is only a bit above average.

In a scenario like this where all the teams are full of offensive talent, there is less of a gap between Luka's shot creation and other scorers on his team. These other stars are also less reliant on Luka's playmaking as they can create their own offense as well.

--------

There is value in being able to shoulder this type of offense. Sort of like the difference between a player who can play 38-42 minutes effectively and a player who can only play 33-34mpg effectively. The stamina to keep going.

Luka has a tremendous capacity to do huge amount for long minutes. That gives him extra value offensively over other stars in the real NBA.

I see that as less valuable in this setting. There is more sharing. More teamwork. Because there is so much talent on every team.

[Who]

.... continuing on ....

(2) The second thing with Luka is related to time on the ball, touches and shot attempts. And I will include James Harden here.

Luka is one of the most ball dominant players we have ever seen. The only starter in this Historical Draft that I would rate as comparable to Luka in this regard is James Harden. Peak Harden did the same thing.

The both massaged the ball on offense. They were both slower in their attacks than other players. Free to take as much time as they wanted because everything revolved around them on their teams.

(1) Is this an effective style of offense in this setting? To have a player handle the ball this much.

Or do you want the ball to move more?

Or do you want to build a helio-centric offense around a guy like Harden or Luka who can shoulder that load? Surround them with finishers & off-ball talent.

(2) If they give up the ball more, how does that change their impact / their production?

Does their offensive value drop off with lower usage? Or do they see an efficiency spike with less workload?

On the second one, I would consider their off-ball skills here. Guys with strong off-ball skills will do better. Guys without good off-ball skills (say guys who struggle with their jump-shot) are more likely to see a drop-off without a scoring efficiency boost to compensate for it.

----------

How does the individual player change and his relative value change depending on how he is asked to play. If we consider usage on a scale, I think the concerns rise with players higher in usage and are relative lower with players on lower usage.

[Moranis]

Immature selfish Paul Pierce went from a usage of 30.3 for the 7 years before Allen and KG, to the mid-20's with the 2 HOF teammates.   Same with Ray Allen going from 28 USG in Seattle down to right around 20 in Boston. 

Great players adapt to the team situation and play whatever style is required for them and their team to win.  Now if we have actual evidence of a player not being able to do it, that is one thing, but I do find it to be very selective with palyers that are well liked verse not as well liked.  Bias doesn't match reality.

[smokeablount]

I do know if there is interest in this topic but I thought it would be interesting to have a thread devoted to individual player analysis who were picked in this draft. How people viewed / rated different players. Particularly players who are more polarizing.

Some suggestions:

* Luka Doncic, James Harden
* Slow mid 00s centers like Shaq, Yao
* offensive PGs like Nash, Steph, Lillard
* no offense centers like Gobert, Big Ben
* McGrady, Vince
* Porzingis, Wemby
* Jokic - how his value differs on super-team vs reg team
* Duncan - I might be alone on this one
* Kobe
* Comparison of Tatum, PG13, Pierce, Jimmy B
* Comparison of Ray, Klay, Ant, B Roy, Manu

Whatever other names pique people's interest. Or wish to get a broader view of how others valued them in the draft.

Not intended to attack or defend a guy. Just how you viewed that player in the draft. To see the differences in how people think about different players.

I?ve commented on TMac and Vince. They were superstar one way wings in their day, and I would expect their efficiency and 3 point volume adapt today. Their apexes were before this timeline and TMac in particular would be more efficient on a less tragic team than 2003 Orlando. They wouldn?t be great on D but are supernova offensive players

Kobe I don?t like as much in this format as real life, where I think he was also overrated. He isn?t efficient and takes a huge volume of shots, particularly when he?s older and you get the premium defense. I think you can get more efficient offense and you don?t want a guy like Kobe to take a big share of it. Too ball dominant, not an elite passer, disappointing efficiency and in real life I think the D is overrated. Sim doesn?t like him much vs his real world rep. He?d be more efficient today like Vince and TMac, but at 15 I don?t love it, with TMac as a starter it isn?t ideal, and it?s a flaw for Vince but in the sim he?s my 12th man and in reality behind Kidd, Rose, KAT, Siakam, maybe even Bam in bench pecking order

I think Jokic is still great in this, but not like real life where he is the best team engine in the league and maybe the best offensive player ever. In the sim on Jvalins team Jokic was usually 4th or 5th on the team in FG attempts, despite being the most efficient. The ball has to come out of his hands a lot more. At his tier of player, he is by far the worst defender of the first round guys with only 1-2 guys even close, and that?s not ideal here. His strengths are minimized some and his weakness is magnified and can be exploited. Still I?d have taken him at 7 or higher without blinking.

I struggled with Klay, Ray, Manu, B Roy. Had Klay 1 because he?s the best 2 way player and the best off ball player, and I had a lot of usage tied up in SGA and KD but thought adding Klay more than made up for Rudy?s lack of offense. Ray was probably the ideal second choice but I was leaning Manu and was considering trading down with CFF if Klay was gone. Thought Manu opened up a lot of potential and Jvalin tried to swap him for Klay in a 3 way deal after the 4th round. Ant I didn?t consider, and Roy the player I love but didn?t love the fit with SGA and KD.

Curious to hear others opinions here as people loved the 4th round and this was a pivotal time for my team and maybe the 2nd biggest decision I made behind SGA