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

[wdleehi]

Review 4 From Team Presentations:

Wdredz's Hawks, Or, "Dwight Howard In The Age Of Innocence"

PG  Williams  07-08
SG  Ray Allen  00-01
SF  Deng  09-10
PF  Love 10-11
C   Howard  08-09

Bench

PG Brandon 95-96
SG Petrovic 91-92
SG/SF Mario Elie  94-95
SF Glen Robinson 92-93
PF/SF Robert Horry 04-05 (only cared about playoff numbers)
PF/C Clifford Robinson (big headband one) 92-93
PF/C Aldridge 10-11
C/PF  Elden Campbell  95-96

Pro's: This is the most traditionally 'complete' team in the entire draft. The pieces just seem to fit together, the weaknesses get addressed, the elements play off each other ultimately making their strength as a unit better than their strength as individual players. You know, Amurrika. Lots of skill from the bigs, lots of defense from the bigs. Solid bench guys with good shooting. Good defense/doitall from Deng. Dominant point.

Cons: Dwight Howard is dominant in a league where a team can start a 36 year old power forward at center and still get to the conference Finals. Especially once Howard hit his stride as a player the last 3 years, the age of the dominant center had passed, and I don't think he would dominate here nearly as well as he does in the actual NBA. I also worry about the defense, as Kevin Love is not a great defender, Ray Allen was not a good defender (for the year selected). I'm not sure Dwight Howard is dominant enough to carry that load.

Current Rankings (Rolling as I Review More Teams)

Overall
1. Magic
2. Hawks
3. Mavs

Offensive
1. Hawks
2. Magic
3. Mavs

Defensive
1. Nuggets
2. Mavs
3. Magic

The 36 year PF happens to be a 7 foot KG (or Tim Duncan) who both could have been C their entire careers and both were picked in the 1st round of this.  Is it any different then 36 year old Ewing, Dreams or Admirals starting?


Howard would still be a rebound and defensive force.  He would still be a pain on the pick and roll.


And on my team, he doesn't need to be option number 1.  He will get the most space in his career with the waves of all star level shooters that will be sent out there, but there are just so many 20 point scorers out there that do it with a high shooting %.

Any concern about not having a single guy that has won the title in your starting lineup?  Are there any other teams that can say that?  (I honestly don't know, im gonna look)

EDIT: wow actually a surprising number of teams where there  isnt a championship winner in the starting 5.  Pretty strange given the format I think.

No.  Ray has shown he is a title lever player.  Howard has carried a team to the finals. 

Then off the bench, I have guys who have been part of multiple title teams (Elie and Horry)  I have other guys who have been to the Finals (Cliff Robinson)





And no, it is not a shock that a lot of lineups do not have players picked at or after they won titles.  Many players best statistical years come from when they had to play on teams that were not as deep as title level teams and there for had to to more for their teams.  That's why I picked alot of guys that have shown success sharing the ball while shooting high %. 

[Rondo2287]

I dunno, I think only having one player in your starting 5 that made it to the finals puts you at a disadvantage when you match up against some of the better teams but thats just my opinion. 

I dunno, we got what 27 years of history to pick from I find it strange that so many teams don't have guys that won.  And I know the NBA has alot of repeat title winners, Lakers, Spurs Etc.  But still just seems like there should be more title winners scattered through the starting lineups than there are.

[Fafnir]

Brief Notes on each team that had a presser:

Allen Iverson PG
Mitch Richmond SG
Larry Johnson SF
AK-47 PF
Deke C
Kenny Anderson PG
Kevin Martin SG
Ron Harper SF
Charles Oakley PF
Amar'e C
Damon Stoudamire
Klay Thompson
Roy Hibbert

Based on your presser I just don't see this team working out well, playing no player over 30 MPG is strange and would cause serious flow and talent issues. I also don't think it has the best talent compared to other teams putting it at an overall disadvantage.

A defensive lineup built around AI/Amar'e's offense with shooting to space the floor could have worked out and been competitive. But you took older broken down Amar'e who wasn't a great athlete anymore, he'd get eaten alive in this league. 2003-2004 Amar'e who repeatedly beat Tim Duncan in his prime for easy buckets would have been another story.

[wdleehi]

I dunno, I think only having one player in your starting 5 that made it to the finals puts you at a disadvantage when you match up against some of the better teams but thats just my opinion. 

I dunno, we got what 27 years of history to pick from I find it strange that so many teams don't have guys that won.  And I know the NBA has alot of repeat title winners, Lakers, Spurs Etc.  But still just seems like there should be more title winners scattered through the starting lineups than there are.

I don't see it as a disadvantage.  Every NBA player has to win their first title.  


My team is set up around my players to do that.  And since they have shown they can be successful when surrounded by the right type of talent (though in Howards case, he had the right style, but not enough talent), I have no worries about the starters having never won a title at the point I picked them.  Especially since some have (and likely will) win a title later in their career.  


Also, having Horry (picked a year where he had his best playoff numbers after winning multiple titles) and Elie (also after winning multiple titles) gives my team voices of those who have been there.  

[Fafnir]

I dunno, I think only having one player in your starting 5 that made it to the finals puts you at a disadvantage when you match up against some of the better teams but thats just my opinion. 

I dunno, we got what 27 years of history to pick from I find it strange that so many teams don't have guys that won.  And I know the NBA has alot of repeat title winners, Lakers, Spurs Etc.  But still just seems like there should be more title winners scattered through the starting lineups than there are.

Perhaps because "winning a title" isn't a useful basketball skill.

Its not like any team here is short on playoff experience or veteran leadership.

[Rondo2287]

I dunno, I think only having one player in your starting 5 that made it to the finals puts you at a disadvantage when you match up against some of the better teams but thats just my opinion. 

I dunno, we got what 27 years of history to pick from I find it strange that so many teams don't have guys that won.  And I know the NBA has alot of repeat title winners, Lakers, Spurs Etc.  But still just seems like there should be more title winners scattered through the starting lineups than there are.

Perhaps because "winning a title" isn't a useful basketball skill.

Its not like any team here is short on playoff experience or veteran leadership.

You don't think Winning a title is valuable experience when it comes to winning another one? 

Yes every team here has playoff experience, but I'll take a guy that went toe to toe against the best teams the league had to offer and came out on top that year than somebody who played for a team that came out with a record around .500 and got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs.  (And of course im talking about similar talent levels, not Scal vs Karl Malone)

In a league where teams with sub .500 records make the playoffs "playoff experience" doesnt hold much water to me compared to "Finals or title winning experience"  I think overlooking what it takes to come out on top is truly doing a disservice.

[Fafnir]

C: Alonzo Mourning 99/00
PF: Antonio McDyess 98/99
SF: Kevin Durant 11/12
SG: Latrell Sprewell 93/94
PG: Tim Hardaway 90/91

Bench:
Marcus Camby 00/01
David West 07/08
Sean Elliott 95/96
Nate McMillan 93/94
Andre Miller 01/02
Anderson Varajao 09/10
Kendell Gill 91/92
Chuck Person 89/90

I really like your team and I think it makes a ton of sense with how its put together. I don't love your starting backcourt having young Spree/Haradaway but I think your bench backup guards could fill in if they had issues  adjusting to playing on such a talented team.

I disagree that you are setup well to defend Shaq. I don't think Camby or AV matches up very well with in his prime Shaq. A quick look at their head to head in the 00s and 01s doesn't contradict that feeling either.

Overall I really like your entire frontcourt, I'm not sure your backcourt will be enough in this format.

[Fafnir]

I dunno, I think only having one player in your starting 5 that made it to the finals puts you at a disadvantage when you match up against some of the better teams but thats just my opinion. 

I dunno, we got what 27 years of history to pick from I find it strange that so many teams don't have guys that won.  And I know the NBA has alot of repeat title winners, Lakers, Spurs Etc.  But still just seems like there should be more title winners scattered through the starting lineups than there are.

Perhaps because "winning a title" isn't a useful basketball skill.

Its not like any team here is short on playoff experience or veteran leadership.

You don't think Winning a title is valuable experience when it comes to winning another one? 

Yes every team here has playoff experience, but I'll take a guy that went toe to toe against the best teams the league had to offer and came out on top that year than somebody who played for a team that came out with a record around .500 and got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs.  (And of course im talking about similar talent levels, not Scal vs Karl Malone)

But you don't talk about specific players lacking experience in big moments, that's something I can understand. Instead you're talking about just counting rings and using that as a substitute for analysis.

I completely buy that deep or repeated playoff experience is valuable on a team. I don't think "winning the finals" is somehow superior to  "losing a tough finals" or losing a tough ECF etc.

[wdleehi]

I dunno, I think only having one player in your starting 5 that made it to the finals puts you at a disadvantage when you match up against some of the better teams but thats just my opinion. 

I dunno, we got what 27 years of history to pick from I find it strange that so many teams don't have guys that won.  And I know the NBA has alot of repeat title winners, Lakers, Spurs Etc.  But still just seems like there should be more title winners scattered through the starting lineups than there are.

Perhaps because "winning a title" isn't a useful basketball skill.

Its not like any team here is short on playoff experience or veteran leadership.

You don't think Winning a title is valuable experience when it comes to winning another one? 

Yes every team here has playoff experience, but I'll take a guy that went toe to toe against the best teams the league had to offer and came out on top that year than somebody who played for a team that came out with a record around .500 and got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs.  (And of course im talking about similar talent levels, not Scal vs Karl Malone)

In a league where teams with sub .500 records make the playoffs "playoff experience" doesnt hold much water to me compared to "Finals or title winning experience"  I think overlooking what it takes to come out on top is truly doing a disservice.

Yet many of the players on my team do have deep playoff experience, even at the point I picked them.

[Fafnir]

C - Yao Ming/Joakim Noah/Manute Bol

PF - KG/Zach Randolph/Antonio Davis

SF - Eddie Jones/Derek McKey/Dennis Scott

SG - Michael Redd/Tony Allen

PG - Chauncey Billups/Sam Cassell

I really like your pairing of KG/Yao. KG is an excellent partner for a relatively slow footed Yao. I'm not a huge fan of Z-Bo in this format, too many talented defenders are in their prime. I also worry that about your somewhat slight C's other than Yao, but your PFs seem to have some heft to them.

I love the combo of Cassell/Billups, two excellent facilitators and tough PGs to deal with. Your SG/SFs the weakness I see in your team. Redd/Allen gives you an interesting offense/defense option but your SFs are out of position and meh overall. I like Eddie Jones, but I don't like him as much in this league if he's forced to take on bigger wings than he did for much of his best years.

[Rondo2287]

I dunno, I think only having one player in your starting 5 that made it to the finals puts you at a disadvantage when you match up against some of the better teams but thats just my opinion. 

I dunno, we got what 27 years of history to pick from I find it strange that so many teams don't have guys that won.  And I know the NBA has alot of repeat title winners, Lakers, Spurs Etc.  But still just seems like there should be more title winners scattered through the starting lineups than there are.

Perhaps because "winning a title" isn't a useful basketball skill.

Its not like any team here is short on playoff experience or veteran leadership.

You don't think Winning a title is valuable experience when it comes to winning another one? 

Yes every team here has playoff experience, but I'll take a guy that went toe to toe against the best teams the league had to offer and came out on top that year than somebody who played for a team that came out with a record around .500 and got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs.  (And of course im talking about similar talent levels, not Scal vs Karl Malone)

But you don't talk about specific players lacking experience in big moments, that's something I can understand. Instead you're talking about just counting rings and using that as a substitute for analysis.

I completely buy that deep or repeated playoff experience is valuable on a team. I don't think "winning the finals" is somehow superior to  "losing a tough finals" or losing a tough ECF etc.

Well thats just cause i don't wanna pick players apart but since you asked. 

I look at Dwight's team that lost the finals 4-1 and thats the only finals experience Dwight has, Rashard Lewis was the best player for the magic in that series IMO.  So when I look at Dwight I see a guy that didnt step up and play his best in the most important series and hasn't gotten back to that level since, (Though his teams have regressed since then)

Deron's team won its division and lost in the second round of the playoffs 4-2 against the eventual WC winner.  Deron had a solid playoff performance averaging 21 and 10.  But a second round loss doesnt really excite me when you are talking about picking a players from the last 27 years.

Ray's team lost in game 7 of the Conference finals and Ray played a hell of a playoffs that year.  Nothing wrong with that.  Probably the best playoff performer of the starting 5.  Ray shot almost %50 from 3 in those playoffs which when you combine that with the rest of his game at that point of his career its deadly. 

Love has never made the playoffs and while playing for some rough teams has only finished out of last place once in his career (rookie season)

The 09-10 Deng lost in the first round and was beat pretty handly by Lebron.  The same Lebron who then quit on his team in the following round against the celtics.

[Rondo2287]

But its all relative i mean you put dwight up against most any other centers, Dwights talent level alone puts him above the other players and so much above those players that I wouldnt really even care about his playoff performances. 

But if you are talking Dwight against Shaq, Duncan, or Robinson thats where it comes into play.

[Fafnir]

Starting Five

PG:  Kevin Johnson 20.4 ppg 12.2 ast 50.5% FG% 88.2% FT%
SG:  Jeff Hornacek 20.1 ppg 2.0 stls 88.6 FT% 43.9 3PT%
SF:  Bruce Bowen 7.1 ppg 0.8 stls 0.5 blks 44.1 3PT%
PF:  Pau Gasol  18.9 ppg 9.6 rpg 56.7 FG% 78.1 FT%
C:   David Robinson 29.8 ppg 10.7 rpg 3.3 blks 50.7 FG%

Bench

PG:  Mookie Blaylock 17.4 ppg 2.7 stls 5.9 asts 4.9 rpg
SG:  Jim Jackson 25.7 ppg 5.1 rpg 36.3 3PT% 80.5 FT%
SG:  Steve Kerr 92.9 FT% 51.5 3PT% 50.6 FG%
SF:  Xavier McDaniel 22.4 ppg 8.4 rpg 50.9 FG%
SF:  Cedric Ceballos 21.2 ppg 6.9 rpg 53.0 FG%
PF:  Al Horford 14.2 ppg 9.9 rpg 55.1 FG%
PF:  Dale Davis 10.6 ppg 9.4 rpg 56.3 FG% 1.6 blks
C:   Hot Rod Williams 16.8 ppg 8.1 rpg 2.0 blks 49.3 FG%

I really like Gasol/Robinson/Johnson, but after that I'm not sure what to think.

Hornacek is a weaker SG in this format and Bowen is a high level role player who spot shoots. Both have value in this format but when I look at your bench I don't see enough high level perimeter play to go with your otherwise strong core.

Your bench bigs are all good fits for what they'll be asked to do, Al Horford is a swiss army knife who can do pretty much anything you want with Dale Davis staring down and keeping the other team in line.

[wdleehi]

I dunno, I think only having one player in your starting 5 that made it to the finals puts you at a disadvantage when you match up against some of the better teams but thats just my opinion. 

I dunno, we got what 27 years of history to pick from I find it strange that so many teams don't have guys that won.  And I know the NBA has alot of repeat title winners, Lakers, Spurs Etc.  But still just seems like there should be more title winners scattered through the starting lineups than there are.

Perhaps because "winning a title" isn't a useful basketball skill.

Its not like any team here is short on playoff experience or veteran leadership.

You don't think Winning a title is valuable experience when it comes to winning another one? 

Yes every team here has playoff experience, but I'll take a guy that went toe to toe against the best teams the league had to offer and came out on top that year than somebody who played for a team that came out with a record around .500 and got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs.  (And of course im talking about similar talent levels, not Scal vs Karl Malone)

But you don't talk about specific players lacking experience in big moments, that's something I can understand. Instead you're talking about just counting rings and using that as a substitute for analysis.

I completely buy that deep or repeated playoff experience is valuable on a team. I don't think "winning the finals" is somehow superior to  "losing a tough finals" or losing a tough ECF etc.

Well thats just cause i don't wanna pick players apart but since you asked. 

I look at Dwight's team that lost the finals 4-1 and thats the only finals experience Dwight has, Rashard Lewis was the best player for the magic in that series IMO.  So when I look at Dwight I see a guy that didnt step up and play his best in the most important series and hasn't gotten back to that level since, (Though his teams have regressed since then)

Deron's team won its division and lost in the second round of the playoffs 4-2 against the eventual WC winner.  Deron had a solid playoff performance averaging 21 and 10.  But a second round loss doesnt really excite me when you are talking about picking a players from the last 27 years.

Ray's team lost in game 7 of the Conference finals and Ray played a hell of a playoffs that year.  Nothing wrong with that.  Probably the best playoff performer of the starting 5.  Ray shot almost %50 from 3 in those playoffs which when you combine that with the rest of his game at that point of his career its deadly. 

Love has never made the playoffs and while playing for some rough teams has only finished out of last place once in his career (rookie season)

The 09-10 Deng lost in the first round and was beat pretty handly by Lebron.  The same Lebron who then quit on his team in the following round against the celtics.

You are trying to hold the following against my team?


Williams team lost to a better team in the 2nd round of the playoff in 6 games.  


Howard carried a team to the Finals where the 2nd best player was Lewis.


My SF lost to a Lebron team?  Lebron didn't quit against Boston, Boston's defense was just to much for a single player with little help to over come.  (Kobe's numbers were similar except he had help)

I agree Love hasn't been to the playoffs, but he is going from a team where he is the best player to a team where you could argue he is the 6th or 7th best player.  


Meanwhile, other players on my bench also have playoff experience.  Including multiple rings.  

[Fafnir]

But its all relative i mean you put dwight up against most any other centers, Dwights talent level alone puts him above the other players and so much above those players that I wouldnt really even care about his playoff performances. 

But if you are talking Dwight against Shaq, Duncan, or Robinson thats where it comes into play.

Here's the issue I have with this line of reasoning, Dwight carried his team to those Finals and was great in the Finals. Yet the fact that he was on the weaker team is a negative, how is making the Finals a negative? It was a 4-1 series but two of those games went to OT, Orlando got beat but wasn't embarrassed.