B-a-T: All-Time Magic - RESULTS POSTED

[LBPTarHeel27]

Crazy weekend. Had my annual fantasy football draft get-away weekend. Couldn't have added the numbers up if I wanted to. Back now...results will be up shortly.

[Devin 1L]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ChrisFoolssard/status/503691898741985280[/tweet]

[LBPTarHeel27]

JUDGEMENT RESULTS

1. Brian Hill's Clipboard - 494 pts
2. Sassy Sassers - 489.5 pts
3. Declercq Dynasty - 289 pts
4. Weisbros - 285 pts
5. Garrity's Gang - 277 pts
6. Blue World Order 187 pts

Red = Disqualified for not sending in a scorecard

Declercq Dynast's Scorecard

1st Place Team Name: Turkoglu Pizza Co.
Quality of Talent (x3) -
Team Chemistry (x2) -
Longevity (x2) -
Intangibles (x2) -
Magic Factor -
Offense -
Defense -
Pimpin' -
Overall Score:

2nd Place Team Name: Sassy Sassers
Quality of Talent (x3) - 8
Team Chemistry (x2) - 7
Longevity (x2) - 7.5
Intangibles (x2) - 7
Magic Factor - 6.5
Offense - 7.5
Defense - 8
Pimpin' - 5.5
Overall Score: 94.5/130

3rd Place Team Name: Weisbros
Quality of Talent (x3) - 8
Team Chemistry (x2) - 8.5
Longevity (x2) - 4.5
Intangibles (x2) - 8
Magic Factor - 5.5
Offense - 7
Defense - 9
Pimpin' - 4.5
Overall Score: 92/130

4th Place Team Name: BHill's Clipboard
Quality of Talent (x3) - 7.5
Team Chemistry (x2) - 7.5
Longevity (x2) - 7
Intangibles (x2) - 6.5
Magic Factor - 7.5
Offense - 7.5
Defense - 7
Pimpin' - 5.5
Overall Score: 92/130

5th Place Team Name: Doogie Deiners
Quality of Talent (x3) -
Team Chemistry (x2) -
Longevity (x2) -
Intangibles (x2) -
Magic Factor -
Offense -
Defense -
Pimpin' -
Overall Score:

Brian Hill's Clipboard's Scorecard

1. DeClercq Dynasty
Quality of Talent - 9 (27)
Team Chemistry - 9 (18)
Longevity - 9 (18)
Intangibles - 9 (18)
Magic Factor - 3
Offense - 9
Defense - 9
Pimpin' - 2

Points: 104/130

2. Blue World Order
Quality of Talent - 8 (24)
Team Chemistry - 7 (14)
Longevity - 7 (14)
Intangibles - 7 (14)
Magic Factor - 7
Offense - 9
Defense - 7
Pimpin' - 4

Points: 93/130

3. Sassy Sassers
Quality of Talent - 8 (24)
Team Chemistry - 7 (14)
Longevity - 9 (18)
Intangibles - 5 (10)
Magic Factor - 6
Offense - 8
Defense - 8
Pimpin' - 3

Points: 91/130

4. O-Rena Chicken Tenders
Quality of Talent -
Team Chemistry -
Longevity -
Intangibles -
Magic Factor -
Offense -
Defense -
Pimpin' -

Points:

5. Little Shaq of Horrors
Quality of Talent -
Team Chemistry -
Longevity -
Intangibles -
Magic Factor -
Offense -
Defense -
Pimpin' -

Points:

Garrity's Gang Scorecard

1st Team Name: Brian Hill’s Clipboard

Quality of Talent (*3): 10
Team Chemistry(*2): 9
Longevity(*2): 9
Intangibles (*2): 8
Magic Factor: 10
Offense: 10
Defense: 8
Pimp 10
Total: 120

2nd Team Name: Turkoglu
Pizza Co.

Quality of Talent (*3):
Team Chemistry(*2):
Longevity(*2):
Intangibles (*2):
Magic Factor:
Offense:
Defense:
Pimp:
Total:

3rd Team Name: Sassy Sassers

Quality of Talent (*3): 9
Team Chemistry(*2): 9
Longevity(*2): 8
Intangibles (*2): 8
Magic Factor: 7
Offense: 8
Defense: 8
Pimp: 10
Total: 110

4th Team Name: Doogie Dieners
Quality of Talent (*3):
Team Chemistry(*2):
Longevity(*2):
Intangibles (*2):
Magic Factor:
Offense:
Defense:
Pimp:
Total:

5th Team Name: Weisbros


Quality of Talent (*3): 9
Team Chemistry(*2): 9
Longevity(*2): 5
Intangibles (*2): 8
Magic Factor: 7
Offense: 6
Defense: 7
Total: 101​


Blue World Order's Scorecard

1st Place Team Name: Sassy Sassers
Quality of Talent (x3) - 8
Team Chemistry (x2) - 8
Longevity (x2) - 5
Intangibles (x2) -7
Magic Factor - 3
Offense - 7
Defense - 9
Pimpin' - 7
Overall Score: 90/130

2nd Place Team Name: Brain Hills clipboard
Quality of Talent (x3) - 8
Team Chemistry (x2) - 8
Longevity (x2) - 4
Intangibles (x2) - 7
Magic Factor - 5
Offense - 8
Defense - 6
Pimpin' - 7
Overall Score: 88/130

3rd Place Team Name: Declercq Dynasty
Quality of Talent (x3) - 7
Team Chemistry (x2) - 7
Longevity (x2) - 8
Intangibles (x2) - 7
Magic Factor - 3
Offense - 7
Defense - 5
Pimpin' - 7
Overall Score: 87/130

4th Place Team Name: Garrity's Gang
Quality of Talent (x3) - 8
Team Chemistry (x2) - 7
Longevity (x2) - 6
Intangibles (x2) - 6
Magic Factor - 1
Offense - 8
Defense - 7
Pimpin' - 9
Overall Score: 87/130

5th Place Team Name: Turkoglu Pizza Co.
Quality of Talent (x3) -
Team Chemistry (x2) -
Longevity (x2) -
Intangibles (x2) -
Magic Factor -
Offense -
Defense -
Pimpin' -
Overall Score:

Weisbros Scorecard

1st Place Team Name: Turkoglu Pizza Co.
Quality of Talent (x3) - 28
Team Chemistry (x2) - 18
Longevity (x2) - 18
Intangibles (x2) - 20
Magic Factor - 0
Offense - 10
Defense - 8
Pimpin' - 1
Overall Score: 103/130

2nd Place Team Name: Garrity's Gang
Quality of Talent (x3) - 26
Team Chemistry (x2) - 19
Longevity (x2) - 17
Intangibles (x2) - 18
Magic Factor - 2
Offense - 9
Defense - 8
Pimpin' - 10
Overall Score: 112/130

3rd Place Team Name: Sassy Sassers
Quality of Talent (x3) - 25
Team Chemistry (x2) - 18
Longevity (x2) - 14
Intangibles (x2) - 19
Magic Factor - 8
Offense - 9
Defense - 6
Pimpin' - 5
Overall Score: 104/130

4th Place Team Name: Brian Hill's Clipboard
Quality of Talent (x3) - 20
Team Chemistry (x2) - 18
Longevity (x2) - 14
Intangibles (x2) - 14
Magic Factor - 7
Offense - 8
Defense - 8
Pimpin' - 10
Overall Score: 99/130

5th Place Team Name: Declerq's Dynasty
Quality of Talent (x3) - 18
Team Chemistry (x2) - 18
Longevity (x2) - 16
Intangibles (x2) - 15
Magic Factor - 8
Offense - 8
Defense - 7
Pimpin' - 8
Overall Score: 98/130

Sassy Sassers' Scorecard

1st Place Team Name: Brian Hill's Clipboard

Quality of Talent (*3): 8
Team Chemistry(*2): 9
Longevity(*2): 8
Intangibles (*2): 6
Magic Factor: 5
Offense: 8
Defense: 7
Pimp 5
Total: 95

2nd Place Team Name: Turk Pizza Co.

Quality of Talent (*3):
Team Chemistry(*2):
Longevity(*2):
Intangibles (*2):
Magic Factor:
Offense:
Defense:
Pimp
Total:

3rd Place Team Name: Blue World Order

Quality of Talent (*3): 7
Team Chemistry(*2): 9
Longevity(*2): 7
Intangibles (*2): 7
Magic Factor: 5
Offense: 9
Defense: 7
Pimp 5
Total: 93

4th Place Team Name: Weisbros

Quality of Talent (*3): 9
Team Chemistry(*2): 8
Longevity(*2): 4
Intangibles (*2): 8
Magic Factor: 4
Offense: 4
Defense: 9
Pimp 6
Total: 92

5th Place Team Name: Garrity's Gang

Quality of Talent (*3): 7
Team Chemistry(*2): 7
Longevity(*2): 7
Intangibles (*2): 4
Magic Factor: 2
Offense: 8
Defense: 8
Pimp 5
Total: 80

[Devin 1L]

Congrats to Brian Hill's Clipboard, and thank you to LBPTarHeel27 for all the hard work.

What's the protocol for requesting a recount?

[LBPTarHeel27]

Congrats to Brian Hill's Clipboard, and thank you to LBPTarHeel27 for all the hard work.

What's the protocol for requesting a recount?

Little disappointed I didn't get more scorecards but it was a lot of fun.

Any ideas for the next one?

[penn24]

Big thanks to LBPTarHeel27 for the huge undertaking, as well as everybody who participated.

Also...thank you to the electronic ping-pong balls that landed us Shaq.

[Scottg247]

This started off a lot of fun. Sucks I broke my leg and a still in the hospital and couldn't get the score cards going. I really wanted to. Also suck my team didn't get scored at all either. Really thought I put a solid team together. Ths is my first time doing this. Some cool ideas and fun idea overall.

[Devin 1L]

Congrats to Brian Hill's Clipboard, and thank you to LBPTarHeel27 for all the hard work.

What's the protocol for requesting a recount?

Little disappointed I didn't get more scorecards but it was a lot of fun.

Any ideas for the next one?

Yeah, it would have been nice, but stuff happens and legs get broken.

I only have two ideas that arise from my first time competing:

1(a) Time on clock.

I would make is a standard amount of time throughout the entire process for (a) simplicity and (b) giving adequate time -- especially if co-GMs are to be encouraged again. I would lean toward longer times (which still wouldn't preclude a number of teams from just rattling off a series of picks.)

1(b) Allow trading on clock.

This was difficult as I think people really like to hold their cards close to their chest and not swing a deal, or discuss seriously, until things are 100% certain. There also arose a scenario where someone was up before us where we wanted to talk trade, but couldn't because they were on the clock, then once the pick was made, we wanted to talk trade with the team after us, but couldn't because we were on the clock which put us in a pickle because as soon as we made our pick, we were free to talk trade, but the next team was now on the clock and therefore not allowed to talk trade.

Taken together -- it's the dog days of summer and there's nothing really going on in the way of NBA basketball, so I don't see much of a hurry to rush through it (though, admittedly, I wasn't the one putting in the effort to organize it, so there's that.) I felt like there were a lot a rules and confusion, and I think these two together would reduce that. You'd know you always have X amount of time to make your pick, and when you're up to pick people could make you an offer knowing exactly who is eligible to be drafted.

2. Force slotted grading. (Only one team can have best defense, only one team second best defense, and so on.)

[bigdogdylan5]

My two cents on this whole thing:

If we ever do this again the scoring needs to be changed to getting points based on where you finished on someones scorecard because i dont think i gave a team in my top 5 less than a six in one particular category and i am seeing some people giving out 1s and 2s in their top 5 it worked well last year because i think we got lucky we had some real hard judges this time i guess and it really hurt me especially with so few scorecards getting turned in

The Allstar BAT was just so much better. The magic just dont have enough good players in their pool. I mean there was arguably only 2 top 50 players on this list (Shaq and Ewing) and if you got them it was really hard to screw it up. Oh and i also liked it when there were more teams. I also thought the whole magic factor thing was confusing and stupid. You were just encouraging players that were already going to be over drafted because we were familiar with them to be overdrafted further. i would have thought it would be more valuable to find diamonds in the rough players that you forgot played for the magic or were overlooked than to draft the players we have all seen play.

Lastly i am a little salty that a team got a higher score than me with two of their key players havent even playing an nba game yet but its alright. Thanks again LBP you did a great job as always hope we do it again.

[Bensational]

Congratulations Brian Hill's Clipboard!



Weisbros are real happy for you, and we're gonna let you finish, but....

Weisbros had one of the best teams of all time!...... OF ALL TIME!!!

No, for realz, I think there were only 2 teams that had the capacity to defeat a Prime Shaq within this draft, and that's Turkoglu Pizza Co, and the Weisbros. Shaq would have steamrolled every other defense. In fact, Shaq did, until he came up against Big Ben Wallace and one of the greatest defenses of the past 20 years.

For those that penalised us for drafting rookies, I hope that you factored in that our team looks to have a 5 year lifespan, until Hill gets hurt. In 5 years time I'm gonna re-earth this thread, and make you all judge again.

But congrats.

[bigdogdylan5]

For those that penalised us for drafting rookies, I hope that you factored in that our team looks to have a 5 year lifespan, until Hill gets hurt. In 5 years time I'm gonna re-earth this thread, and make you all judge again.

But congrats.

LOL really? We are doing this now not in 5 or 10 years. You still drafted two guys in key roles that haven't played an NBA game how the hell are we suppose to judge that. I mean I agree I think they will succeed or at least I hope they do. I thought like last year we were suppose to judge peoples history up to this point and not speculation on how they might be.

[Devin 1L]

For those that penalised us for drafting rookies, I hope that you factored in that our team looks to have a 5 year lifespan, until Hill gets hurt. In 5 years time I'm gonna re-earth this thread, and make you all judge again.

But congrats.

LOL really? We are doing this now not in 5 or 10 years. You still drafted two guys in key roles that haven't played an NBA game how the hell are we suppose to judge that. I mean I agree I think they will succeed or at least I hope they do. I thought like last year we were suppose to judge peoples history up to this point and not speculation on how they might be.

Oh! I actually meant to post one more idea and it's relates to this being discussed -- do not allowed current rookies.

In reality, they've never played an NBA game, let alone one for the Magic. Though unlikely, they might get traded before having played a game, or even worse -- never play an NBA game.

I had no problems with them being in it going into this thing. But, for the aforementioned reason, combined with the fact that people were penalizing for picking them*, I think it's probably best that they just be left out.

---

*I don't think it's fair to dock drafting rookies, because frankly it was explicitly allowed within the rules. We assumed that it would involve some sort of reasonable projection, and I think that assumption was warranted, by (a) the mere fact that they were allowed in the first place and (b) no one seemed to have qualms with Oladipo going before Arron Afflalo, Scott Skiles, Cuttino Mobley, Larry Hughes, JJ Redick, etc. I mean, let's be real, Oladipo hasn't done jack in this league yet -- he wasn't even ROY in this awful draft class, and he sure as hell hasn't done more than the guys listed above that got drafted after him, but we project him to be good and judge accordingly and no one has a problem with that.

Nevertheless, while I do think there exists a certain double-standard in that regard, I can't fault people for not wanting to project rookies and for wanting to grade them poorly, but that's why I think a rule change is in order. Just don't allow them. People don't feel comfortably judging them positively, and technically, they've never actually played a game, so it makes it an easy rationale to fall back on.

[Bensational]

For those that penalised us for drafting rookies, I hope that you factored in that our team looks to have a 5 year lifespan, until Hill gets hurt. In 5 years time I'm gonna re-earth this thread, and make you all judge again.

But congrats.

LOL really? We are doing this now not in 5 or 10 years. You still drafted two guys in key roles that haven't played an NBA game how the hell are we suppose to judge that. I mean I agree I think they will succeed or at least I hope they do. I thought like last year we were suppose to judge peoples history up to this point and not speculation on how they might be.

Nah I'm not serious about re-earthing the thread. The judging involved in this is competition is all about speculation. We're speculating on how players in their prime would've meshed with other players in their prime. It's not as simple as "I've got a starting 5 who all averaged 20ppg, therefore my team will average 100ppg". I think that to evaluate a team properly you need to project how well they're going to compliment each other. Look at the 03-04 Lakers - 4 HOF players, all of which were 20ppg players the previous season. All 4 of them combine and suddenly 2 become sub 15ppg guys, and the team loses in the finals for the first time in 4 years. If you wanted to accurately predict something like that, you need to project. But in most of these cases you're projecting players into secondary roles that they may not have been 'elite' in.

Boston 08. Ray Allen, 26ppg scorer the season before, a 17ppg scorer on a championship team. KG, 22ppg to 18ppg. What separates them from LA Payton/Malone? Or LA Nash? Or LA Howard? etc, etc.

Al Harrington was a 20ppg scorer on a 32-50 NYK team. The season that he was on his most successful team was 03-04, in which he was a 13ppg scorer (9.5ppg in the playoffs) that lost in the ECFs. Which Harrington are you suggesting you get? The role player who was able to help his team that far, or the high scorer on a terrible team? Because the successful role playing version of AH wasn't actually a good shooter at that point in his career, so he wouldn't have complimented Kemp all that well. In his high scoring year, he needed 16FGAs to reach those numbers. Who's shots will you sacrifice to make that happen? See what I mean?

My point is that you've got to project how any of these players are going to fit into roles that they likely didn't play, or that they wouldn't have been playing during their most individually successful years. What's the difference between that level of projection, and projecting how a rookie will fit in to a system? You want a real world example? Tell me what numbers Cleveland's new Big 3 will be getting this year, and explain how you worked it out.

In regards to making a case for our rookies, we chose two guys who have NBA ready defense, to go along with the best defensive coach in the league. If Thibs can get big performances out of Hinrich/Augustin/Butler, what's to say he couldn't get two servicable defenders out of Payton and Gordon? It's a matter of speculation, but so is guessing how well Al Harrington would serve as a compliment to Shawn Kemp.

Oh, and considering that out of the context of this game, most people are very high on Payton, it seems hypocritical to then turn around and mark us down for that. Everyone has taken the time to make their assessments on how they think the rooks will perform this season and in the future, so why can't those thoughts be factored into this hypothetical game?

I know this may sound like sour grapes, but it's really not. Debating these hypothetical situations is one of the best bits of this thing, IMO.

[bigdogdylan5]

Look i dont mean to get anyone mad but the way these has been done the commissoner has said and put it in the rules that longevity is a factor and because these guys have no longevity whats so ever i think you should have been penalized. I agree this whole thing is speculation of how they would play together but the other players we have seen play have statistics we can judge. Those rookies have none of this all they have is their college resumes i mean really?? How are we suppose to judge them they should have been left out all together

[bigdogdylan5]

For those that penalised us for drafting rookies, I hope that you factored in that our team looks to have a 5 year lifespan, until Hill gets hurt. In 5 years time I'm gonna re-earth this thread, and make you all judge again.

But congrats.

LOL really? We are doing this now not in 5 or 10 years. You still drafted two guys in key roles that haven't played an NBA game how the hell are we suppose to judge that. I mean I agree I think they will succeed or at least I hope they do. I thought like last year we were suppose to judge peoples history up to this point and not speculation on how they might be.

Nah I'm not serious about re-earthing the thread. The judging involved in this is competition is all about speculation. We're speculating on how players in their prime would've meshed with other players in their prime. It's not as simple as "I've got a starting 5 who all averaged 20ppg, therefore my team will average 100ppg". I think that to evaluate a team properly you need to project how well they're going to compliment each other. Look at the 03-04 Lakers - 4 HOF players, all of which were 20ppg players the previous season. All 4 of them combine and suddenly 2 become sub 15ppg guys, and the team loses in the finals for the first time in 4 years. If you wanted to accurately predict something like that, you need to project. But in most of these cases you're projecting players into secondary roles that they may not have been 'elite' in.

Boston 08. Ray Allen, 26ppg scorer the season before, a 17ppg scorer on a championship team. KG, 22ppg to 18ppg. What separates them from LA Payton/Malone? Or LA Nash? Or LA Howard? etc, etc.

Al Harrington was a 20ppg scorer on a 32-50 NYK team. The season that he was on his most successful team was 03-04, in which he was a 13ppg scorer (9.5ppg in the playoffs) that lost in the ECFs. Which Harrington are you suggesting you get? The role player who was able to help his team that far, or the high scorer on a terrible team? Because the successful role playing version of AH wasn't actually a good shooter at that point in his career, so he wouldn't have complimented Kemp all that well. In his high scoring year, he needed 16FGAs to reach those numbers. Who's shots will you sacrifice to make that happen? See what I mean?

My point is that you've got to project how any of these players are going to fit into roles that they likely didn't play, or that they wouldn't have been playing during their most individually successful years. What's the difference between that level of projection, and projecting how a rookie will fit in to a system? You want a real world example? Tell me what numbers Cleveland's new Big 3 will be getting this year, and explain how you worked it out.

In regards to making a case for our rookies, we chose two guys who have NBA ready defense, to go along with the best defensive coach in the league. If Thibs can get big performances out of Hinrich/Augustin/Butler, what's to say he couldn't get two servicable defenders out of Payton and Gordon? It's a matter of speculation, but so is guessing how well Al Harrington would serve as a compliment to Shawn Kemp.

Oh, and considering that out of the context of this game, most people are very high on Payton, it seems hypocritical to then turn around and mark us down for that. Everyone has taken the time to make their assessments on how they think the rooks will perform this season and in the future, so why can't those thoughts be factored into this hypothetical game?

I know this may sound like sour grapes, but it's really not. Debating these hypothetical situations is one of the best bits of this thing, IMO.

Its nowhere near the same thing Kemp and Harrington have played in the league a long time and we know what they can do in the nba. You put one of the most important positions in sports in my eyes (PG) and you put a player who has not even set foot on an nba court. That with Gordon as well. I am sorry your arguments makes zero sense to me.

[bigdogdylan5]

I love how you think my team wouldnt fit together i think it fits and complements perfectly but what the **** do i know i guess

[Bensational]

LOL really? We are doing this now not in 5 or 10 years. You still drafted two guys in key roles that haven't played an NBA game how the hell are we suppose to judge that. I mean I agree I think they will succeed or at least I hope they do. I thought like last year we were suppose to judge peoples history up to this point and not speculation on how they might be.

Nah I'm not serious about re-earthing the thread. The judging involved in this is competition is all about speculation. We're speculating on how players in their prime would've meshed with other players in their prime. It's not as simple as "I've got a starting 5 who all averaged 20ppg, therefore my team will average 100ppg". I think that to evaluate a team properly you need to project how well they're going to compliment each other. Look at the 03-04 Lakers - 4 HOF players, all of which were 20ppg players the previous season. All 4 of them combine and suddenly 2 become sub 15ppg guys, and the team loses in the finals for the first time in 4 years. If you wanted to accurately predict something like that, you need to project. But in most of these cases you're projecting players into secondary roles that they may not have been 'elite' in.

Boston 08. Ray Allen, 26ppg scorer the season before, a 17ppg scorer on a championship team. KG, 22ppg to 18ppg. What separates them from LA Payton/Malone? Or LA Nash? Or LA Howard? etc, etc.

Al Harrington was a 20ppg scorer on a 32-50 NYK team. The season that he was on his most successful team was 03-04, in which he was a 13ppg scorer (9.5ppg in the playoffs) that lost in the ECFs. Which Harrington are you suggesting you get? The role player who was able to help his team that far, or the high scorer on a terrible team? Because the successful role playing version of AH wasn't actually a good shooter at that point in his career, so he wouldn't have complimented Kemp all that well. In his high scoring year, he needed 16FGAs to reach those numbers. Who's shots will you sacrifice to make that happen? See what I mean?

My point is that you've got to project how any of these players are going to fit into roles that they likely didn't play, or that they wouldn't have been playing during their most individually successful years. What's the difference between that level of projection, and projecting how a rookie will fit in to a system? You want a real world example? Tell me what numbers Cleveland's new Big 3 will be getting this year, and explain how you worked it out.

In regards to making a case for our rookies, we chose two guys who have NBA ready defense, to go along with the best defensive coach in the league. If Thibs can get big performances out of Hinrich/Augustin/Butler, what's to say he couldn't get two servicable defenders out of Payton and Gordon? It's a matter of speculation, but so is guessing how well Al Harrington would serve as a compliment to Shawn Kemp.

Oh, and considering that out of the context of this game, most people are very high on Payton, it seems hypocritical to then turn around and mark us down for that. Everyone has taken the time to make their assessments on how they think the rooks will perform this season and in the future, so why can't those thoughts be factored into this hypothetical game?

I know this may sound like sour grapes, but it's really not. Debating these hypothetical situations is one of the best bits of this thing, IMO.

Its nowhere near the same thing Kemp and Harrington have played in the league a long time and we know what they can do in the nba. You put one of the most important positions in sports in my eyes (PG) and you put a player who has not even set foot on an nba court. That with Gordon as well. I am sorry your arguments makes zero sense to me.

So you know how Kemp and Harrington play together?

And we drafted more than 5 players. We've also got Ben Gordon and Brian Shaw who could step in at PG when needed, and Vernon Maxwell who can step up as a starting SG if Gordon is playing the point. Not to mention the fact that Hill would ultimately be the point forward of the team. So, sorry, that argument makes zero sense to me.

[bigdogdylan5]

Nah I'm not serious about re-earthing the thread. The judging involved in this is competition is all about speculation. We're speculating on how players in their prime would've meshed with other players in their prime. It's not as simple as "I've got a starting 5 who all averaged 20ppg, therefore my team will average 100ppg". I think that to evaluate a team properly you need to project how well they're going to compliment each other. Look at the 03-04 Lakers - 4 HOF players, all of which were 20ppg players the previous season. All 4 of them combine and suddenly 2 become sub 15ppg guys, and the team loses in the finals for the first time in 4 years. If you wanted to accurately predict something like that, you need to project. But in most of these cases you're projecting players into secondary roles that they may not have been 'elite' in.

Boston 08. Ray Allen, 26ppg scorer the season before, a 17ppg scorer on a championship team. KG, 22ppg to 18ppg. What separates them from LA Payton/Malone? Or LA Nash? Or LA Howard? etc, etc.

Al Harrington was a 20ppg scorer on a 32-50 NYK team. The season that he was on his most successful team was 03-04, in which he was a 13ppg scorer (9.5ppg in the playoffs) that lost in the ECFs. Which Harrington are you suggesting you get? The role player who was able to help his team that far, or the high scorer on a terrible team? Because the successful role playing version of AH wasn't actually a good shooter at that point in his career, so he wouldn't have complimented Kemp all that well. In his high scoring year, he needed 16FGAs to reach those numbers. Who's shots will you sacrifice to make that happen? See what I mean?

My point is that you've got to project how any of these players are going to fit into roles that they likely didn't play, or that they wouldn't have been playing during their most individually successful years. What's the difference between that level of projection, and projecting how a rookie will fit in to a system? You want a real world example? Tell me what numbers Cleveland's new Big 3 will be getting this year, and explain how you worked it out.

In regards to making a case for our rookies, we chose two guys who have NBA ready defense, to go along with the best defensive coach in the league. If Thibs can get big performances out of Hinrich/Augustin/Butler, what's to say he couldn't get two servicable defenders out of Payton and Gordon? It's a matter of speculation, but so is guessing how well Al Harrington would serve as a compliment to Shawn Kemp.

Oh, and considering that out of the context of this game, most people are very high on Payton, it seems hypocritical to then turn around and mark us down for that. Everyone has taken the time to make their assessments on how they think the rooks will perform this season and in the future, so why can't those thoughts be factored into this hypothetical game?

I know this may sound like sour grapes, but it's really not. Debating these hypothetical situations is one of the best bits of this thing, IMO.

Its nowhere near the same thing Kemp and Harrington have played in the league a long time and we know what they can do in the nba. You put one of the most important positions in sports in my eyes (PG) and you put a player who has not even set foot on an nba court. That with Gordon as well. I am sorry your arguments makes zero sense to me.

So you know how Kemp and Harrington play together?

And we drafted more than 5 players. We've also got Ben Gordon and Brian Shaw who could step in at PG when needed, and Vernon Maxwell who can step up as a starting SG if Gordon is playing the point. Not to mention the fact that Hill would ultimately be the point forward of the team. So, sorry, that argument makes zero sense to me.

No i dont know that Harrington and Kemp can play together but i have more evidence for my assertions than yours because guess what their is no NBA evidence for Payton and Gordon.

[Bensational]

So you know how Kemp and Harrington play together?

And we drafted more than 5 players. We've also got Ben Gordon and Brian Shaw who could step in at PG when needed, and Vernon Maxwell who can step up as a starting SG if Gordon is playing the point. Not to mention the fact that Hill would ultimately be the point forward of the team. So, sorry, that argument makes zero sense to me.

No i dont know that Harrington and Kemp can play together but i have more evidence for my assertions than yours because guess what their is no NBA evidence for Payton and Gordon.

so what you're saying is that you don't believe Payton has the achievable potential to become as good as Mario Chalmers or Derek Fisher? because that's all he'd need to do be a championship caliber PG. And as you said, it's the most important position in sports.

we never positioned Payton or A.Gordon to be superstars on the team, just solid role players that fit within our system - if we get more than that from them, bonus. time will tell on that front. you've never said anything previously about doubting their ability to reach that level but now, for the sake of a game, you've decided that they're unable to be evaluated? you can't formulate an opinion on them?

i don't care about points, or winning this, but it'd be nice if you could at least have a legit discussion about these hypothetical teams we've created.

[TDJacksonville]

Best team assembled with no trades at my pick.
HC:Chuck Daly
C: Rony Siekaly/ Kelvin Cato
PF: Bo Outlaw/ Dave Corzine
SF: Tracy McGrady/ David Benoit
SG: Cutino Mobley/ Gordon Giricek
PG: Scott Skiles/ Steve Kerr

Sent from my LG-E980 using RealGM Forums mobile app