2011 CB Historical Draft - Draft Thread

[33-00-32]

Absolutely love the Petitt & Ewing picks.

EDIT:  I had Petitt pegged pretty high.  2nd round talent.

No doubt, not many guys left on the board that can give you 28 and 20

true, but pace does matter.  119 ppg and gave up 115 ppg, in an era when they didn't have team rebounds.  Still an excellent season, but that would be more like someone of today going for 35 and 27 and more like a 20 point, 13 rebound season in today's game (which is still excellent, but not what the numbers might really indicate).

Pettit was on my radar as well but I ended up deciding on Ewing over him due to one factor, size. I have seen Pettit listed at 6'9" and anywhere from 205 to 215 lbs. With the rosters we're putting together I needed to know that the guy I put out there could compete and match up with all the rest of the big guys. I just wasn't sure that Pettit would survive.

There is that too, I mean Lebron who is a SF is bigger then Pettit.  That certainly has to factor in.

You guys realize that Russell was the same size as Pettit right?

I have Russell at 6'10" 220 lbs. Not huge differences but a difference.

[33-00-32]

Pettit was on my radar as well but I ended up deciding on Ewing over him due to one factor....

He was available to be drafted by you and Pettit wasn't

Fair enough. What I meant to say was...as I was contemplating my pick for today since the end of yesterdays round...

[Rondo2287]

Absolutely love the Petitt & Ewing picks.

EDIT:  I had Petitt pegged pretty high.  2nd round talent.

No doubt, not many guys left on the board that can give you 28 and 20

true, but pace does matter.  119 ppg and gave up 115 ppg, in an era when they didn't have team rebounds.  Still an excellent season, but that would be more like someone of today going for 35 and 27 and more like a 20 point, 13 rebound season in today's game (which is still excellent, but not what the numbers might really indicate).

Pettit was on my radar as well but I ended up deciding on Ewing over him due to one factor, size. I have seen Pettit listed at 6'9" and anywhere from 205 to 215 lbs. With the rosters we're putting together I needed to know that the guy I put out there could compete and match up with all the rest of the big guys. I just wasn't sure that Pettit would survive.

There is that too, I mean Lebron who is a SF is bigger then Pettit.  That certainly has to factor in.

You guys realize that Russell was the same size as Pettit right?

I have Russell at 6'10" 220 lbs. Not huge differences but a difference.

Basketball Reference has him at 6'9" 215

[wdleehi]

Question:  at what point do people "reach", just because they love a particular player or because they really like his fit on their team, even if objectively that player may slide a couple of rounds later?

I think this is the round where I'd start considering binkies. 

I think at this point, you need to look at fit more.  

A slight lesser top player off all time that fits is better then a more talented player that does not.  


By this point, you should have your 3 man base.

[Roy H.]

When I'm evaluating players, I'm going to be looking more at dominance against peers, rather than size and strength.  I'm sympathetic to the argument that with advances in weight training, better nutrition, advanced medicine, etc., yesterday's players would be every bit as big, strong, and athletic as the guys today.  Therefore, I'm looking at skill and ability to perform against their era's competition.

Edgar and Dons may see it differently, but from where I sit, older players don't have a built-in disadvantage.  In other words, just because a guy is 6'9" and 215 pounds at center doesn't mean that I'll assume he'd play at that height and weight in the "modern age".

(It's scary to think what that means in the case of a guy like Wilt Chamberlain, who already had stellar athleticism, even compared to many of today's players.)

[Moranis]

Absolutely love the Petitt & Ewing picks.

EDIT:  I had Petitt pegged pretty high.  2nd round talent.

No doubt, not many guys left on the board that can give you 28 and 20

true, but pace does matter.  119 ppg and gave up 115 ppg, in an era when they didn't have team rebounds.  Still an excellent season, but that would be more like someone of today going for 35 and 27 and more like a 20 point, 13 rebound season in today's game (which is still excellent, but not what the numbers might really indicate).

Pettit was on my radar as well but I ended up deciding on Ewing over him due to one factor, size. I have seen Pettit listed at 6'9" and anywhere from 205 to 215 lbs. With the rosters we're putting together I needed to know that the guy I put out there could compete and match up with all the rest of the big guys. I just wasn't sure that Pettit would survive.

There is that too, I mean Lebron who is a SF is bigger then Pettit.  That certainly has to factor in.

You guys realize that Russell was the same size as Pettit right?

I have Russell at 6'10" 220 lbs. Not huge differences but a difference.

Basketball Reference has him at 6'9" 215

and Russell at center will have problems, just like he did with Wilt.  Now give the centers Wilt's size but tack on an extra 50 pounds and the problem will be magnified.  Russell at PF, would be fine though.

[Moranis]

When I'm evaluating players, I'm going to be looking more at dominance against peers, rather than size and strength.  I'm sympathetic to the argument that with advances in weight training, better nutrition, advanced medicine, etc., yesterday's players would be every bit as big, strong, and athletic as the guys today.  Therefore, I'm looking at skill and ability to perform against their era's competition.

Edgar and Dons may see it differently, but from where I sit, older players don't have a built-in disadvantage.

Certainly a fair point, but take Russell.  Wilt consistently out performed him in a large part because of his size advantage.  Wilt was bigger then a lot of his peers though.  I think that has to play in a great deal.  Pettit and Russell were great against each other and many of hte other centers, of course they were all essentially the same size.  They all were much less effective against Wilt who was quite simply bigger and stronger then they were. 

[nickagneta]

When I'm evaluating players, I'm going to be looking more at dominance against peers, rather than size and strength.  I'm sympathetic to the argument that with advances in weight training, better nutrition, advanced medicine, etc., yesterday's players would be every bit as big, strong, and athletic as the guys today.  Therefore, I'm looking at skill and ability to perform against their era's competition.

Edgar and Dons may see it differently, but from where I sit, older players don't have a built-in disadvantage.  In other words, just because a guy is 6'9" and 215 pounds at center doesn't mean that I'll assume he'd play at that height and weight in the "modern age".

(It's scary to think what that means in the case of a guy like Wilt Chamberlain, who already had stellar athleticism, even compared to many of today's players.)

This I agree with 100%

[Rondo2287]

When I'm evaluating players, I'm going to be looking more at dominance against peers, rather than size and strength.  I'm sympathetic to the argument that with advances in weight training, better nutrition, advanced medicine, etc., yesterday's players would be every bit as big, strong, and athletic as the guys today.  Therefore, I'm looking at skill and ability to perform against their era's competition.

Edgar and Dons may see it differently, but from where I sit, older players don't have a built-in disadvantage.  In other words, just because a guy is 6'9" and 215 pounds at center doesn't mean that I'll assume he'd play at that height and weight in the "modern age".

(It's scary to think what that means in the case of a guy like Wilt Chamberlain, who already had stellar athleticism, even compared to many of today's players.)

As somebody with Shaq in his prime I probably shouldnt say this but I think you are right.  Physically Shaq would dominate most of the 60's and 70's stars I would think.

[33-00-32]

Absolutely love the Petitt & Ewing picks.

EDIT:  I had Petitt pegged pretty high.  2nd round talent.

No doubt, not many guys left on the board that can give you 28 and 20

true, but pace does matter.  119 ppg and gave up 115 ppg, in an era when they didn't have team rebounds.  Still an excellent season, but that would be more like someone of today going for 35 and 27 and more like a 20 point, 13 rebound season in today's game (which is still excellent, but not what the numbers might really indicate).

Pettit was on my radar as well but I ended up deciding on Ewing over him due to one factor, size. I have seen Pettit listed at 6'9" and anywhere from 205 to 215 lbs. With the rosters we're putting together I needed to know that the guy I put out there could compete and match up with all the rest of the big guys. I just wasn't sure that Pettit would survive.

There is that too, I mean Lebron who is a SF is bigger then Pettit.  That certainly has to factor in.

You guys realize that Russell was the same size as Pettit right?

I have Russell at 6'10" 220 lbs. Not huge differences but a difference.

Basketball Reference has him at 6'9" 215

and Russell at center will have problems, just like he did with Wilt.  Now give the centers Wilt's size but tack on an extra 50 pounds and the problem will be magnified.  Russell at PF, would be fine though.

I hate to poo poo on the great 11 ringed one so I'll try to be nice, I sort of agree. I think the only way he competes at C is if you look at things the way Roy has described. I have been trying to draft guys that I thought could compete against any eras players but thta just goes to show you how many different ways there are to look at this draft. It makes things fun.

[Edgar]

I think your biggest strenght is prime time shaq

[mgent]

I'm going with Elvin Hayes if he isn't already picked.

[nickagneta]

Also remember that just because someone isn't tall doesn't mean they don't play much larger.

Modern era examples:

Charles Barkley who is listed at 6'6" but I think everyone KNOWS that is being generous. Yet he was a monster rebounder and excellent power forward.

A certain modern era rebounder was the best of his generation at 6'7".

Most people generously list Moses Malone at 6'10" but he wasn't that tall but he played like a 7 footer plus.

[nickagneta]

The Denver Nuggets have surpassed their time.

The Los Angeles Lakers may now pick.

[Rondo2287]

I think your biggest strenght is prime time shaq

I would hope so, he was my number 1 pick haha.

Also, this is kind of off topic but when you talk about comparing era's Daniel Tosh had a really funny joke about Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds.  Saying people shouldnt be hating on bonds and the steroid era guys so much because guys like Ruth never had a pitcher Like CC Sabathia staring him down throwing 90 MPH sliders.  Or for that matter, Babe never had to play against Negro League Players