How's my Historical Team? (Awesome right!)

[Fafnir]

Ya if you take out shaq's teams the average defensive ranking per team is 4.42

If you take out all of Duncan's teams what does that do to your rankings? You can also just slide the data window to cut out the 00-01 Lakers if you want to try that fudging trick.

When you take the best offensive post player of an era out of your data it you distorts it heavily. Both by lessening your sample size and cherry picking. You can do the same by removing the best defensive big man of the era if you'd like.

I wasnt trying to Cherry Pick I just thought it was phenomenal how much Shaq's teams skew the data.  

Shaq + Duncan = 8 titles since Jordan's Bulls last hurrah

So their teams dictate pretty much everything when it comes to typical title winning teams. Removing Duncan is a 1, 1, 3, (and if you extend the list to include the first lockout season that's also a 1)

Edit: And going back that far also lets Shaq put up a #1 defense on the board too

[Who]

The only guy wasn't wild about was Jim Jackson.

What's wrong with Jackson?  I really like that pick, and thought it addressed some of the concerns I had about Dons on the wing.

He was a solid but unexceptional player. A well-rounded game but wasn't well above average at anything. Just average or slightly above average. A solid defender/rebounder and decent offensive player.

He doesn't create any advantages for his team, or, negate/limit an opponents advantage well enough to be a valuable piece of the puzzle.

That was why he was constantly being shipped around during his career. He's not a guy who really effects wins and losses. Just a place-holder.

[Fafnir]

The only guy wasn't wild about was Jim Jackson.

What's wrong with Jackson?  I really like that pick, and thought it addressed some of the concerns I had about Dons on the wing.

He was a solid but unexceptional player. A well-rounded game but wasn't well above average at anything. Just average or slightly above average. A solid defender/rebounder and decent offensive player.

He doesn't create any advantages for his team, or, negate/limit an opponents advantage well enough to be a valuable piece of the puzzle.

That was why he was constantly being shipped around during his career. He's not a guy who really effects wins and losses. Just a place-holder.

I read this and immediately thought of Rudy Gay for some reason.

[Who]

The only guy wasn't wild about was Jim Jackson.

What's wrong with Jackson?  I really like that pick, and thought it addressed some of the concerns I had about Dons on the wing.

He was a solid but unexceptional player. A well-rounded game but wasn't well above average at anything. Just average or slightly above average. A solid defender/rebounder and decent offensive player.

He doesn't create any advantages for his team, or, negate/limit an opponents advantage well enough to be a valuable piece of the puzzle.

That was why he was constantly being shipped around during his career. He's not a guy who really effects wins and losses. Just a place-holder.

I read this and immediately thought of Rudy Gay for some reason.

Certainly true of Rudy earlier on his career (doesn't effect W-L enough). I think he's pretty good now. I thought he was a notch below All-Star level these past two years. 

In terms of Jimmy Jackson, I'd bring it down a level and away from a low level star to someone more like a Wes Matthews type player in Portland. A replaceable role player.

Matthews seems to have a solid skill-set offensively but it's not strong enough to really take on his defender on a regular basis. Always a guy who belongs more on the periphery. And while he plays good defense, he's not a high level defender plus he is a weak possession creator. Overall, he is someone who can be anywhere from an above average backup to a serviceable starter. Jimmy Jackson was the same way.

Neither player effects winning strongly enough to be more than that. And in this Historical League, where the talent is so much higher, that means J.Jackson doesn't offer much value to his team.

[StartOrien]

Nobody else wanted to go public with their ballot, eh?

[StartOrien]

Too impressed with my Orlando Magic, I assume.

[Roy H.]

Nobody else wanted to go public with their ballot, eh?

What the heck, right?

Best Overall Team:
1. Atlanta Hawks
2. Milwaukee Bucks Memphis Grizzlies
3. New York Knicks

Best Offensive Team:
1. Dallas Mavericks
2. Orlando Magic
3. San Antonio Spurs

Best Defensive Team:
1. New York Knicks
2. Indiana Pacers
3. Los Angeles Lakers

I'm sure that's going to irritate a lot of folks, but I call 'em like I see 'em.

Toughest omission, and perhaps a glaring mistake on my part, was leaving the 76ers off my ballot.  I just didn't love the fit as much as my top three (call it the Tmac factor), but seriously, Shaq alone is enough to carry that team to greatness.  

[StartOrien]

There's no such thing as the Milwaukee Bucks?

(at least according to rosters page)

[Bahku]

I put my ballot in.

BEST DEFENSE

1. New York Knicks
2. LA Clippers
3. Miami Heat

Was really debating between Heat and the Pacers for that third spot. Ultimately, I decided that while I like the Pacers' speed a ton, I had some concerns about them taking on size.


BEST OFFENSE

1. Orlando Magic
2. Atlanta Hawks
3. Boston Celtics

 

BEST OVERALL

1. Orlando Magic
2. Atlanta Hawks
3. Miami Heat


Sorry to Greenfaith, who I had ranked 4th in offense and overall, and 5th defense.

Appreciate the nod, SO, and I agree ... I only see one team (NYK) with defensive superiority to mine, a couple close behind, (offense I disagree just a bit). Thanks for looking beyond the AI stigma, too.

[RebusRankin]

SO, Thanks.

Roy, me no like.

[indeedproceed]

How does an offense, led by Steve Nash, the guy responsible for the most prolific offense in the last what, 20 years, with 4 20 point a night guys, all of whom have show the ability to score in a good variety of ways, with 2 other willing facilitators among them, and all 4 being plus defenders led by none other than Scottie Pippen, with a bench full of athleticism and capable defenders, even prolific shooters (outright in Rice AND Person's case, for their position in Big Z and Okur), and ERSAN ILYASOVA not top the offense ranking?

[StartOrien]

How does an offense, led by Steve Nash, the guy responsible for the most prolific offense in the last what, 20 years, with 4 20 point a night guys, all of whom have show the ability to score in a good variety of ways, with 2 other willing facilitators among them, and all 4 being plus defenders led by none other than Scottie Pippen, with a bench full of athleticism and capable defenders, even prolific shooters (outright in Rice AND Person's case, for their position in Big Z and Okur), and ERSAN ILYASOVA not top the offense ranking?

YO, HOWD U LAND ALL THOSE TWENTY POINT SCORERS?!

[Roy H.]

There's no such thing as the Milwaukee Bucks?

(at least according to rosters page)

Oops.  I always think of Dons as the Bucks.  I meant the Griz.

[Donoghus]

There's no such thing as the Milwaukee Bucks?

(at least according to rosters page)

Oops.  I always think of Dons as the Bucks.  I meant the Griz.

Yeah, that was my team in '10 when I last did this.  Wouldn't have minded sticking with the name. 

I definitely associate certain posters with certain teams too, either thru CB draft or historical draft.

[KCattheStripe]

Best Overall Team:
1. Celtics
2. Hawks
3. Knicks

Best Offensive Team:
1. Celtics
2. Hawks
3. Magic

Best Defensive Team:
1. Lakers
2. Knicks
3. Pacers