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

[StartOrien]

That's a tentative ranking, and if you're wondering where your team fits if its not ranked, assume its 4th and tell me why I should rank it higher. I'll tally up the votes and submit mine when I get back (still waiting on a few GM's and holding out hope they'll make it).

I'll pimp my team one more time. This is going to sound like every post that I hate:

I do think my team's versatility is being overlooked. In a format like this, where talents the same, I think having a big strategical advantage is a big deal. I can match up with any team, and also create a strategical advantage. I've done my best to be able to create the 'nightmare matchup' against every team.

[GreenFaith1819]

Here are my rankings so far:

Best Overall:

1. Lakers
2. The GM that owns Durant and Alonzo Mourning. I don't 
   believe that all of the Team Posts are in yet, but whoever
   owns that team impressed me with just those two as building
   blocks.
3. NY

Best Defense:

1. Lakers
2. NY
3. The GM that owns Durant and Alonzo Mourning. Again - I
   don't believe every GM has posted their entire team, yet.

Best offense:

1. Hawks
2. Zo and Durant's team
3. Lakers

[RebusRankin]

I like the Hawks but if you read my presser, you'll see my counters to that team.

[Moranis]

I have no doubts that Rose is a good passer, but I have some questions about him running a coherent offense alongside a team of great players. Particularly those who work well with the ball in their hands.

I could see Rose and Malone working well together, and I think Bynum compliments them as well. But I don't see Pierce and Johnson excelling as spot-up shooters, which is the role I think this offense would dictate.

Joe Johnson was essentially a spot up shooter for the Suns the year I chose.  In 04-05 he shot 4.5 threes a game (essentially a third of his shots) and hit them at a 47.8% clip.  In the playoffs he shot 4 a game and hit them a 55.6% clip. 

In 01-02 Pierce shot 6.3 threes a game (about 30% of his total shots) and hit them at 40.4%.  Sure he had a more versed game, but he was a bomber the year I choose (which is one of the main reasons I choose that year).

[Moranis]

And Johnson is perhaps the best three point shooter in this game.

Come again? Glen Rice? Like 20 other guys?

I think Moranis is saying that because Joe Johnson shot 47.8% from three on 350+ attempts in the year he chose JJ.

However, for me, that 47.8% only translates (fully) when in an offense of a similar nature (seven seconds or less) that creates comparable ball-movement and shooting opportunities. In other words, I think JJ will shoot a lower percentage on that Dallas team because they will run a very different offense. He'll still be very very good though.

I actually anticipate quite a few fast break opportunities and a relatively quick offense.  I believe the players I choose would all be good in that sort of system. 

And yes that was my point, nearly 48% on 4.5 attempts a game.  I'm not sure there is anyone better than that actually when taken as a whole, especially when you consider he went up to 55.6% on 4 attempts in the playoffs when you are supposed to be worse.

[wdleehi]

I like the Hawks but if you read my presser, you'll see my counters to that team.

The Hawks were not impressed. 

[Moranis]

Yes, they are ready.  He won the MVP for a reason.  Whether or not you think they gave it to the right player, he was good enough to be in the discussion. 


And I don't hold whether one player on a team has lead a team deep or not.  These teams are loaded.  There are going to be multiple players on every team that has lead or been apart of teams that went deep.

Wdleehi - I truly believe that Derrick Rose earned that MVP award that season - no question.

My point is - Championship experience, however large or small, figures into this game, I believe. It always has, to my memory. With that being said, we can't just arbitrarily say that a team in this format that lacks championship experience will get his team there - no matter how they are constructed.

The interesting this with this draft is that people like Dirk, who won a banner last year, was easily a better player in his early years than his championship year - so with that being said - I'm guessign that whoever "owns" Dirk, went with his Prime years vice his championship years.

To be fair to my team for the seasons I choose

Malone - NBA Finals
Rose, Pierce - EC Finals
Bynum, Johnson - WC Semis

Every single player in my starting lineup was on a team that won at least one round in the postseason.  Bynum has 2 prior championships on his resume and Pierce would go on to win one later.  No actual title seasons, but I'm not sure there is another team out there where every starter was on a team that won a playoff round in the year actually selected.

[RebusRankin]

I like the Hawks but if you read my presser, you'll see my counters to that team.

The Hawks were not impressed. 

Would like to see the Hawks counter.

[indeedproceed]

Glen Rice shot 47% on more attempts, as the primary option on offense.

Joe Johnson benefitted from Steve Nash's amazing passing which is why the spurs should've been the top offense.

[Who]

Glen Rice shot 47% on more attempts, as the primary option on offense.

With a shortened three point line. A lot of those were long twos.

Not a legit 47%.

[indeedproceed]

Glen Rice shot 47% on more attempts, as the primary option on offense.

With a shortened three point line. A lot of those were long twos.

Not a legit 47%.

All due respect, I find that ridiculous. Glen Rice's 3pt line, in 1997 is not relevant. He shot 3s with the line he was given, you might as well say Joe Johnson's 47% was not legitimate because he had more open 3s than the average player. Or maybe that Dennis Rodman's defense was not legitimate, because of the more free contact rules when he played, or that Larry Bird's dominance was not legitimate because of the lack of hyper athletic long defenders at the 3.

[Moranis]

Glen Rice shot 47% on more attempts, as the primary option on offense.

With a shortened three point line. A lot of those were long twos.

Not a legit 47%.

All due respect, I find that ridiculous. Glen Rice's 3pt line, in 1997 is not relevant. He shot 3s with the line he was given, you might as well say Joe Johnson's 47% was not legitimate because he had more open 3s than the average player. Or maybe that Dennis Rodman's defense was not legitimate, because of the more free contact rules when he played, or that Larry Bird's dominance was not legitimate because of the lack of hyper athletic long defenders at the 3.

But we are talking about putting him on a team playing with the rules and three point line of today, which is absolutely relevant.  Joe Johnson hit a slightly higher rate than Glen rice (and actually got better in the playoffs unlike glen who got about 10% worse when it mattered most).  Johnson is also much more suited for the role of 5th option than Glen Rise is coming off your bench.

I absolutely maintain that Joe Johnson is the best three point shooter in this game given the toltality of the situation (i.e. percentage, amount shot, role in original offense v. role on new team, etc.). 

[Who]

Glen Rice shot 47% on more attempts, as the primary option on offense.

With a shortened three point line. A lot of those were long twos.

Not a legit 47%.

All due respect, I find that ridiculous. Glen Rice's 3pt line, in 1997 is not relevant. He shot 3s with the line he was given, you might as well say Joe Johnson's 47% was not legitimate because he had more open 3s than the average player. Or maybe that Dennis Rodman's defense was not legitimate, because of the more free contact rules when he played, or that Larry Bird's dominance was not legitimate because of the lack of hyper athletic long defenders at the 3.

But we are talking about putting him on a team playing with the rules and three point line of today, which is absolutely relevant. 

Exactly

[Rondo2287]

Still haven't seen a team that could beat the Knicks, that's for sure

[indeedproceed]

Absolutely 100% disagree about the 'legitimacy' of Rice's mark. You might argue that his shooting might drop slightly on the new role, just like you might argue that Johnson's shooting would suffer because he doesn't have a comparable playmaker giving him looks.

And there are times when the differences between eras should be examined and taken into account, but usually I think those are most pertinent when addressing quality of competition. But, in this case, a mere what, 5 years apart, you can hardly dismiss Rice's mark as illegitimate. That is, unless you can somehow prove through shot location and other factors that Rice at that age, at that mark, wouldve been less effective.