2011 CB Historical Draft - Draft Thread

[Roy H.]

I largely agree regarding Glen Rice.  It's hard to discount 27 ppg on 47% 3PT shooting, but Rice was a liability in terms of rebounding (an anemic 4.0 boards in 42.3 minutes, which may be the worst rebounding by a SF ever), and he wasn't much of a defender.

I guess I did turn a blind eye to the minutes per game, huh?

The good thing is that you've got two of the best rebounders ever up front, and a very good rebounding SG.  I think Rice's deficiencies in that area can be covered for.

My bigger concern with your team is the defense.  Bill Russell is weeping thinking about anchoring a defense that includes Barkley + Rice + Nash.

[Who]

I would only use that super-sized frontcourt - Dirk, Dwight and Gilmore - in certain situations.

Not as a main lineup.

As a useful alternative that they can throw at teams where appropriate in order to create matchup problems for their problem.

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

Dirk Nowitzki, especially an older Dirk, is too slow and vulnerable defensively to play the SF position full time.

But in certain situations, he would be a useful option there especially alongside two big men like Dwight Howard and Artis Gilmore -- tough rebounders, quality defenders and shot blockers, low post scorers who can keep SF defenders on Dirk.

Dirk's ability to play all three frontcourt positions is a valuable trait. The vast majority of his court time should come at the PF position though.

[StartOrien]

I largely agree regarding Glen Rice.  It's hard to discount 27 ppg on 47% 3PT shooting, but Rice was a liability in terms of rebounding (an anemic 4.0 boards in 42.3 minutes, which may be the worst rebounding by a SF ever), and he wasn't much of a defender.

I guess I did turn a blind eye to the minutes per game, huh?

The good thing is that you've got two of the best rebounders ever up front, and a very good rebounding SG.  I think Rice's deficiencies in that area can be covered for.

My bigger concern with your team is the defense.  Bill Russell is weeping thinking about anchoring a defense that includes Barkley + Rice + Nash.

But Steve Nash is HYPED 

I've got a few logical picks in the next couple rounds that should give me a little more flexibility as far as that goes.

[Who]

I largely agree regarding Glen Rice.  It's hard to discount 27 ppg on 47% 3PT shooting, but Rice was a liability in terms of rebounding (an anemic 4.0 boards in 42.3 minutes, which may be the worst rebounding by a SF ever), and he wasn't much of a defender.

I guess I did turn a blind eye to the minutes per game, huh?

Also on the 47% three point shooting which happened when the NBA shortened the three point line.

Glen Rice wasn't able to replicate that on a regular sized court and actually only had one season in his career where he hit above 40% on threes on a proper sized court (out of 11/12 years).

The rest of his career he was a sub-40% three point shooter.

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

Glen Rice's scoring efficiency (TS%) was also quite a bit lower than someone like Chris Mullin's.

Glen Rice only broke the 60% mark once in his career and the 58% mark two other times. And all three of those campaigns happened with the shortened three point line.

The rest of his career, Rice spent the majority of his time in between the 53-56% TS% range. His best effort came in 97-98 when he hit 56.8%.

In comparison, Chris Mullin at or above 58% for every year of his career except for one outside of his first and final years. He also had seven 60+% seasons (three with the shortened three point line).

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

Anyway, those are the reasons (combined with the poor defense + rebounding) why I didn't like the draft pick.

[Who]

I like Mullin, though.  He brings very good scoring + very good efficiency + average rebounding + good passing. 

Mullin's rebounding wasn't average. His per game numbers are boosted by playing on an uptempo team.

Mullin was a below average rebounder ... and for most of his career, he was a very poor one at that.

If you check his rebounding rates, you can see what I am talking about.

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

I do fully agree that Mullin has huge value offensively as a scorer, shooter and passer. Excellent decision maker and wonderful intelligence. A terrific offensive player with major value.

Chris Mullin is a fine choice. He belongs here ... I mean, in this fantasy game, as a rotation player. His talent demands it.

His lack of defense and rebounding does bother me ... but not to the same degree as Glen Rice because of Mullin's fantastic offensive contributions.

[StartOrien]

The rest of his career he was a sub-40% three point shooter.

I think simply stating that the line moved back and Rice suffered is a disservice to his skillset and is overlooking some other obvious issues.

The start of his decline, was his tenth season in the league, at the age of 31. For the second straight seeason his fg and 3 pt% dropped pretty significantly

That season was also his first with the Lakers, which for various reasons never seemed to work out.

[Who]

That season was also his first with the Lakers, which for various reasons never seemed to work out.

Glen Rice struggled with the Lakers because:

(1) The ball wasn't in his hands often enough + he struggled to play alongside two major scorers in Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal.

(2) Phil Jackson hated Rice's lack defense and rebounding and didn't rate Rice highly as a player as result ... which was the main reason why Rice was shipped off that next summer (after his first full season in LA) despite LA winning 67 games and an NBA Championship. The poor defense / rebounding was also the main reason for Rice's decline in minutes.

[StartOrien]

That season was also his first with the Lakers, which for various reasons never seemed to work out.

Glen Rice struggled with the Lakers because:

(1) The ball wasn't in his hands often enough + he struggled to play alongside two major scorers in Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal.

(2) Phil Jackson hated Rice's lack defense and rebounding and didn't rate Rice highly as a player as result ... which was the main reason why Rice was shipped off that next summer (after his first full season in LA) despite LA winning 67 games and an NBA Championship. The poor defense / rebounding was also the main reason for Rice's decline in minutes.

And nothing to do with age despite a significant drop in 3 pt and fg% the year before as well in Charlotte?

Also, if I recall correctly an injury in his first season with LAL?

[Who]

That season was also his first with the Lakers, which for various reasons never seemed to work out.

Glen Rice struggled with the Lakers because:

(1) The ball wasn't in his hands often enough + he struggled to play alongside two major scorers in Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal.

(2) Phil Jackson hated Rice's lack defense and rebounding and didn't rate Rice highly as a player as result ... which was the main reason why Rice was shipped off that next summer (after his first full season in LA) despite LA winning 67 games and an NBA Championship. The poor defense / rebounding was also the main reason for Rice's decline in minutes.

And nothing to do with age despite a significant drop in 3 pt and fg% the year before as well in Charlotte?

I don't think so.

Rice was still a very effective offensive player during his time with the Lakers. Physically too, Rice was still in very good shape.

The main reason for the decline in his numbers was the smaller role.

[Roy H.]

The rest of his career he was a sub-40% three point shooter.

I think simply stating that the line moved back and Rice suffered is a disservice to his skillset and is overlooking some other obvious issues.

The start of his decline, was his tenth season in the league, at the age of 31. For the second straight seeason his fg and 3 pt% dropped pretty significantly

That season was also his first with the Lakers, which for various reasons never seemed to work out.

I think there's little question that Rice benefited from a shorter 3 PT line during his peak.  At the same time, I think there's also little question that he was a very good 3 PT shooter at any distance.  For instance, the year the league went back to its current 3PT dimensions ('98) Rice hit 43.3% from deep. 

I don't think Rice will have any issue hitting a lot of threes at a very good percentage in this league.  The question is does he contribute enough elsewhere?

[StartOrien]

I don't think Rice will have any issue hitting a lot of threes at a very good percentage in this league.  The question is does he contribute enough elsewhere?

I got him to hit 3's at a high percentage and that's it.

So as of right now, I'd say that the answer is no, he doesn't contribute enough. I think by the time I'm done compiling the roster that answer changes.

EDIT: That seems like a terrible answer, but it makes sense to me? Essentially, there's two players I see me getting in the next 2 rounds that makes Rice a great fit.

[Fafnir]

I don't think Rice will have any issue hitting a lot of threes at a very good percentage in this league.  The question is does he contribute enough elsewhere?

I got him to hit 3's at a high percentage and that's it.

So as of right now, I'd say that the answer is no, he doesn't contribute enough. I think by the time I'm done compiling the roster that answer changes.

EDIT: That seems like a terrible answer, but it makes sense to me? Essentially, there's two players I see me getting in the next 2 rounds that makes Rice a great fit.

In this sort of draft why in the world would you draft a one dimensional player like him if his role is just to jack it from deep?

I can think of three or four plus defenders who can hit threes at a similar clip. They didn't have the same overall offensive game, but you just declared that you don't need him for anything more.

[Fafnir]

That season was also his first with the Lakers, which for various reasons never seemed to work out.

Glen Rice struggled with the Lakers because:

(1) The ball wasn't in his hands often enough + he struggled to play alongside two major scorers in Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal.

(2) Phil Jackson hated Rice's lack defense and rebounding and didn't rate Rice highly as a player as result ... which was the main reason why Rice was shipped off that next summer (after his first full season in LA) despite LA winning 67 games and an NBA Championship. The poor defense / rebounding was also the main reason for Rice's decline in minutes.

And nothing to do with age despite a significant drop in 3 pt and fg% the year before as well in Charlotte?

I don't think so.

Rice was still a very effective offensive player during his time with the Lakers. Physically too, Rice was still in very good shape.

The main reason for the decline in his numbers was the smaller role.

And he'll be in a similarly small role in this game due to the greater talent around him in the game.

[Roy H.]

I don't think Rice will have any issue hitting a lot of threes at a very good percentage in this league.  The question is does he contribute enough elsewhere?

I got him to hit 3's at a high percentage and that's it.

So as of right now, I'd say that the answer is no, he doesn't contribute enough. I think by the time I'm done compiling the roster that answer changes.

EDIT: That seems like a terrible answer, but it makes sense to me? Essentially, there's two players I see me getting in the next 2 rounds that makes Rice a great fit.

Yeah, I think it's important for everyone to keep open-minded, because picks that don't look great at first can end up being a fabulous fit.  I'll use Atlanta as an example again:  I hated a starting lineup featuring both Kobe and Ray.  However, adding Chris Mullin and moving Ray to the bench made that a much more formidable team.

[StartOrien]

I don't think Rice will have any issue hitting a lot of threes at a very good percentage in this league.  The question is does he contribute enough elsewhere?

I got him to hit 3's at a high percentage and that's it.

So as of right now, I'd say that the answer is no, he doesn't contribute enough. I think by the time I'm done compiling the roster that answer changes.

EDIT: That seems like a terrible answer, but it makes sense to me? Essentially, there's two players I see me getting in the next 2 rounds that makes Rice a great fit.

In this sort of draft why in the world would you draft a one dimensional player like him if his role is just to jack it from deep?

I can think of three or four plus defenders who can hit threes at a similar clip. They didn't have the same overall offensive game, but you just declared that you don't need him for anything more.

I think you're absolutely incorrect about finding someone who can hit at a similar clip. 47% on 5.6 shots attempts per game. The attempts per game is very important.

I also believe that this draft lends itself to the kind of logic that lets me take an elite 3 point shooter to simply shoot 3 pointers.

You've accurately pointed out that there's 3-4 other talented defensive small forwards still available to pick. There's 12 teams in this league, many of which already have a player that fits that role. Why wouldn't I grab a player with an elite skill set (in this case elite 3 point shooting) and then assume I could grab one of those other defensive small forwards later on?

Finally, i LOVED Glen Rice as a player and needed to have him on my team.