2011 CB Historical Draft - Draft Thread

[Fafnir]

I've been thinking about for a little while this morning and I cannot warm to the idea of Allen Iverson in this fantasy game setting.

I could see Iverson playing the role that Nate Robinson had for us last year. You're going to let him play each game, but you'd be quick to pull him if he wasn't 'the good Allen Iverson'

Because Allen Iverson would react very well to being benched for ball hogging.

[StartOrien]

I've been thinking about for a little while this morning and I cannot warm to the idea of Allen Iverson in this fantasy game setting.

I could see Iverson playing the role that Nate Robinson had for us last year. You're going to let him play each game, but you'd be quick to pull him if he wasn't 'the good Allen Iverson'

Because Allen Iverson would react very well to being benched for ball hogging.

I don't like to bring the element of locker room chemistry into this game, its impossible to judge.

Sure he wouldn't like to be benched, but you could conversely say he'd respond well to being selected in a league of all time greats.

[indeedproceed]

I don't like to bring the element of locker room chemistry into this game, its impossible to judge.

I think as long as you have a pattern of behavior to judge on its a valid concern. This isn't Vietnam, Donnie. There are rules.

[Fafnir]

I've been thinking about for a little while this morning and I cannot warm to the idea of Allen Iverson in this fantasy game setting.

I could see Iverson playing the role that Nate Robinson had for us last year. You're going to let him play each game, but you'd be quick to pull him if he wasn't 'the good Allen Iverson'

Because Allen Iverson would react very well to being benched for ball hogging.

I don't like to bring the element of locker room chemistry into this game, its impossible to judge.

Sure he wouldn't like to be benched, but you could conversely say he'd respond well to being selected in a league of all time greats.

This entire game is impossible to judge, why throw out one of the most important things in basketball?

The probability that Allen Iverson who was a selfish, ball hogging, petulant player his entire career who only was successful on teams that were built around him having the ball all the time and everyone else covering his but defensively would become a great bench scorer isn't very high in my mind.

[33-00-32]

Ok the slow poke has finished, the Celtics roster has been moved to the team page. I'm ready for questions and I challenge anyone to say we are not the #1 Defensive team and best team overall. I might have a move or two that I would change if I did everything all over again but overall I couldn't be happier with this team. Thanks to Nick and all of the mods for making it all happen.

I'd like to see your team start Vince Carter at the two. I think that is a stronger lineup overall than your current one with Billups in that starting lineup. 

The main reason would be to keep W.Frazier at the point and Hondo at the three. W.Frazier, in particular, who I think his value decreases when used as a two guard instead of a big powerful defensive PG.

Hondo is fine at either wing position but I'd keep him at the SF because I think the starters at that position taper off a bit after the top 6/7 guys and that having a guy as good as Hondo there is a nice advantage for you. Plus, I don't like the idea of A.English or P.Stojakovic starting. Much prefer Vince's game.

I think Vince with his size (6-7, wide shoulders, strong body, incredible explosiveness) is a very tough guy for some SGs to matchup against physically. Add in his very talented skill-set and he is a very nice 4th / 5th best starter for any team.

I think I have him beat no matter who he starts at the wings and the point. 

I like my chances either way but Who may have a point in a game against your guys I might go with Vince. Walt against CP3 plays great def and limits his options. I think Vince's explosiveness would require PP to need a lot of help and with Hondo's non-stop movement LeBum would never keep up. McAdoo against the greatest PF of all time, not even close. I give you Moses in a close one but not by a lot. Ewing had size, mobility and was a great defender.

Pierce and Carter matched up 4 times in the 2001-02 season (the year I chose for Pierce and still very much in Vince's prime).  Pierce was better then Vince, though both were below their season averages.  In fact aside from one monster game from Pierce (30 points on 59%) neither player shot better then 38.5% in any of the games, though both were close to their averages in the other statistics.  As expected Pierce also got to the line more.  

They also matched up 4 times in the 2000-2001 season (the year I chose for Carter). Vince was better than Paul (VC-28ppg, 53fg%, 65% 3p% vs 24ppg, 49fg%, 43% 3p%). According to the box scores for that year Pierce was a SF for 2 games which when factored in brings his numbers to (20ppg, 42fg%, 43% 3p%) when matched against Vince and Vince's numbers don't change. Toronto won 3 out of 4 of the games.

In 01-02 (the year you chose) PP is listed at SG in only 1 of those games in which he had 22pts and Vince had 27. Toronto won that game.

I think they are pretty even but Vince has had a slight advantage in these earlier years. No question Pierce is the better guy today.

[StartOrien]

I don't like to bring the element of locker room chemistry into this game, its impossible to judge.

I think as long as you have a pattern of behavior to judge on its a valid concern. This isn't Vietnam, Donnie. There are rules.

You're out of your element, IP.

You're looking for a mental precedent in an unprecedented league. I know there's more to Iverson's character flaws than just one instance, but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

I don't think one could possibly gage how a player would mentally react to this league. So personally, I don't like to see the argument.

[KCattheStripe]

3.  Seattle -- This isn't a huge criticism, because Mo Lucas is such a good player, but I was surprised to see Cowens' minutes limited.  I don't see many circumstances where giving Pippen an extra 8 minutes at PF will make sense over giving Cowens those minutes, although I'm sure it depends upon matchups.

My using Scotty for 8 minutes a game was in anticipation of people trying to use a small ball lineup and run, if that never happens, Cowens eats those minutes.

[indeedproceed]

I don't like to bring the element of locker room chemistry into this game, its impossible to judge.

I think as long as you have a pattern of behavior to judge on its a valid concern. This isn't Vietnam, Donnie. There are rules.

You're out of your element, IP.

You're looking for a mental precedent in an unprecedented league. I know there's more to Iverson's character flaws than just one instance, but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

I don't think one could possibly gage how a player would mentally react to this league. So personally, I don't like to see the argument.

Kevin Garnett and the rest of the 'big 3' didn't want Iverson on the C's on a minimum contract because he would be a chemistry issue.

You're saying that's not good enough, or are we not talking about Allen Iverson here? Somebody waiting for the other (poop-filled) shoe to drop?

[Roy H.]

. . . but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

It's hard to say.  What if AI believed he was better than those all-time greats?  Or what if he thought the ball would be better in his hands, versus Frazier's or Chauncey's or whoever's?

I think it's something legit to take into account.  It's one of the things I was musing about earlier.  Are we to assume that players with these talents all grew up in the same era and formed a league together?  In that case, AI might accept coming off the bench.  However, if it's a situation where the guys were put into a time machine, then I don't think there's any way that AI embraces anything other than a starter's role.

[StartOrien]

Kevin Garnett and the rest of the 'big 3' didn't want a skill-depleted Iverson on the C's on a minimum contract because he would be a chemistry issue.

You're saying that's not good enough, or are we not talking about Allen Iverson here? Somebody waiting for the other (poop-filled) shoe to drop?

Fixed that for you.

I'd say that not wanting Iverson was just as much to do with lack of talent left as it was chemistry. From skill-set alone, I'd probably prefer 2011 Nate Robinson over 2011 Allen Iverson.

[indeedproceed]

. . . but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

It's hard to say.  What if AI believed he was better than those all-time greats?  Or what if he thought the ball would be better in his hands, versus Frazier's or Chauncey's or whoever's?

I think it's something legit to take into account.  It's one of the things I was musing about earlier.  Are we to assume that players with these talents all grew up in the same era and formed a league together?  In that case, AI might accept coming off the bench.  However, if it's a situation where the guys were put into a time machine, then I don't think there's any way that AI embraces anything other than a starter's role.

Are we talking Terminator rules, Back To The Future Rules, or Timerider rules? Because if we're talking Timerider, that's just plain silly.

[StartOrien]

. . . but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

It's hard to say.  What if AI believed he was better than those all-time greats?  Or what if he thought the ball would be better in his hands, versus Frazier's or Chauncey's or whoever's?

I think it's something legit to take into account.  It's one of the things I was musing about earlier.  Are we to assume that players with these talents all grew up in the same era and formed a league together?  In that case, AI might accept coming off the bench.  However, if it's a situation where the guys were put into a time machine, then I don't think there's any way that AI embraces anything other than a starter's role.

I just don't like judging on something so completely open to interpretation. There's too many directions you could take it.

[Fafnir]

. . . but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

It's hard to say.  What if AI believed he was better than those all-time greats?  Or what if he thought the ball would be better in his hands, versus Frazier's or Chauncey's or whoever's?

I think it's something legit to take into account.  It's one of the things I was musing about earlier.  Are we to assume that players with these talents all grew up in the same era and formed a league together?  In that case, AI might accept coming off the bench.  However, if it's a situation where the guys were put into a time machine, then I don't think there's any way that AI embraces anything other than a starter's role.

I just don't like judging on something so completely open-ended to interpretation.

Then why are you playing this game? I'm being completely serious, this is no more subjective than any other part of this game.

We're hypothetically shoving a ton of great players who for the most part all were the dominate player on their teams who all played big minutes all on a small number of teams. Its very open to interpretation on how well people would succeed in reduced roles.

[indeedproceed]

Kevin Garnett and the rest of the 'big 3' didn't want a skill-depleted Iverson on the C's on a minimum contract because he would be a chemistry issue.

You're saying that's not good enough, or are we not talking about Allen Iverson here? Somebody waiting for the other (poop-filled) shoe to drop?

Fixed that for you.

I'd say that not wanting Iverson was just as much to do with lack of talent left as it was chemistry. From skill-set alone, I'd probably prefer 2011 Nate Robinson over 2011 Allen Iverson.

You can say that, but considering Iverson was vehemently saying he wouldn't come off the bench for ANYONE at age 34, I don't think his skillset was their primary motivator to turn him down.

[Roy H.]

. . . but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

It's hard to say.  What if AI believed he was better than those all-time greats?  Or what if he thought the ball would be better in his hands, versus Frazier's or Chauncey's or whoever's?

I think it's something legit to take into account.  It's one of the things I was musing about earlier.  Are we to assume that players with these talents all grew up in the same era and formed a league together?  In that case, AI might accept coming off the bench.  However, if it's a situation where the guys were put into a time machine, then I don't think there's any way that AI embraces anything other than a starter's role.

I just don't like judging on something so completely open to interpretation. There's too many directions you could take it.

Wouldn't you agree that judging players who played in 1960 (smaller, weaker, less efficient, faster paced, no three pointer, different rules, etc.) versus those who played in 2011 is equally open to interpretation, though?