RealGM

Would there be any interest in a Piston All-time Fantasy draft?

Spitballing on the format...

Any number of teams, seeds could be random

Player must have 200 games one season or more (post-merger 1976-77 and later) with the Pistons. Player's ability is at his peak with the Pistons.

A tournament would follow with matchups decided by each participant describing his strategy against his opponent, followed by group discussion, with a poll finally deciding the winner.

Thoughts?

I'd be in.

I think you gotta make it 8 teams only though - ain't no one drafting Lindsey Hunter to start at PG for them!

I got curious and by my counts only 43 players match that criteria.

Phobo_Phile wrote:I got curious and by my counts only 43 players match that criteria.

Yikes. Might have to drop the 200 game requirement. Maybe anyone who played a season for the Pistons. Fixed.

Laimbeer wrote:

Phobo_Phile wrote:I got curious and by my counts only 43 players match that criteria.

Yikes. Might have to drop the 200 game requirement. Maybe anyone who played a season for the Pistons. Fixed.

T Mac ai

self-delete

Pharaoh wrote:I'd be in.

I think you gotta make it 8 teams only though - ain't no one drafting Lindsey Hunter to start at PG for them!

I think Hunter is easily one of the 8 best point guards we've had. Heck, off the top of my head I think he could be top 5! Which is a problem for this draft, unfortunately. There isn't really as much depth as you'd think. You aren't going to get 8 good NBA teams from the pool of players as is currently set up.

EDIT: Just checked. He's top 5! Isiah, Billups, Jackson, Porter are really the only legit point guards we've had in the time frame (and Jennings is a stretch to the nth degree given how brief his success with us was, if you put him in there it moves Hunter to 6th). I could easily see a guy like Dumars being used at the point rather than as a 2, but I still think Hunter very likely finds a starting spot on a team in a league of 8.

Fun idea, but I'm not sure it works. We've also really only had a few starting caliber centers and power forwards during that time. Wings are deeper, of course, but yeah....

I'd be open to something like this, I just think it needs to be changed somehow, and I'm not sure how. Taking into account years a player wasn't with the Pistons puts heavy hitters like Bob Mcadoo, Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, and Chris Webber into play, but it also kinda degrades the spirit of the game, too. I think it would be fun, but I can see why others wouldn't really like it.

Yeah, I kinda dislike the idea of being able to take Webber, TMac, AI, or McAdoo and assume they are in their prime. It defeats the "All-time Piston" theme. Also was thinking having to dig a little further for guys like Atkins and Bynum would make it a bit more of a challenge and keep everyone from coming away with a 60 win type of team.

Well of course the teams are going to be mediocre to bad but as long as every team has that glaring hole then it would be ok. Dave Bing did come close to leading the league in apg a few seasons so he could very well be a great PG. John Long was pretty good as well. I am interested in trying to build a team with only 1or 2 all stars and journeymen. In todays small league some of those old timers aren't too small anymore to play.

My guess there is talent for about 16-20 players and then the drop off gets ugly.

Warspite wrote:Well of course the teams are going to be mediocre to bad but as long as every team has that glaring hole then it would be ok. Dave Bing did come close to leading the league in apg a few seasons so he could very well be a great PG. John Long was pretty good as well. I am interested in trying to build a team with only 1or 2 all stars and journeymen. In todays small league some of those old timers aren't too small anymore to play.

My guess there is talent for about 16-20 players and then the drop off gets ugly.

Dave Bing was only a Piston pre-merger and thus will not be in this.

Guys like Will Bynum and Chucky Atkins actually could start in a league like this, as long as you understand that going in I guess it isn't a problem.

I'm in regardless if this is happening, I love games like this.

There are 2 contending cores in our history, plus a couple of solid lower seed playoff type cores, plus a whole lot of bad teams. There are 13 unique All Star selections (and one of them is Iverson ). I think what you'll get from that drafting group is 8 pretty mediocre by NBA standards teams. That can be interesting, but probably best to understand that's what we're getting going in.

Oh, we're looking at some very meh teams. No doubt about that. But the limited talent might have it's own interest.

Maybe allow Bing since he is so iconic, raises the quality, and is borderline on the merger rule. I just don't want to include guys from way back and this to dissolve into a debate about how transportable players might be.

I'd also shy away from players like Iverson, McAdoo, Webber, and TMac. It doesn't feel like they were really Pistons in the context of their careers and the marquee of their names might overshadow what they were as players here.

Just my thoughts.

Laimbeer wrote:Oh, we're looking at some very meh teams. No doubt about that. But the limited talent might have it's own interest.

Maybe allow Bing since he is so iconic, raises the quality, and is borderline on the merger rule. I just don't want to include guys from way back and this to dissolve into a debate about how transportable players might be.

I'd also shy away from players like Iverson, McAdoo, Webber, and TMac. It doesn't feel like they were really Pistons in the context of their careers and the marquee of their names might overshadow what they were as players here.

Just my thoughts.

Well, its probably a moot point. Those guys really weren't good enough as Pistons to be desirable here. Stigma alone would keep me from picking Iverson, and Webber probably played only 40 some games with us.

8 is pretty much what you need to have, you probably don't want more than that. Could probably make fewer work too.

I'm sorry I didn't read pre merger rule. I was kind of looking forward to looking at DeBuss, Yardley and a few others from the 50s and 60s. If your only using post 1977 then yeah that limits the talent. DeBuss and Bing are top 5-8 players.

It would kind of suck building a team with Vinnie Johnson as your best player.

I'd be fine with just including anyone later than the mid-60s. DeBuss was a successful and meaningful player on teams into the 70s, not quite to the merger, but pretty close. Just so happens that he left our team in the late 60s. That adds 2 more hall of famers into the game, and brings us up to 15 all stars, so that virtually every team (except the team with the number one pick, perhaps) has 2 and thus a shot at being solid.

Yardley is farther back than I'd be willing to go personally though. He just invented a new type of shot that nobody knew how to defend. He'd probably get killed in today's league.

Vinny wouldn't be anyone's best player regardless though.

I'm rolling with JenkyHo at the point! Suck it scrubs!

I'd be interested to see who went #1...

Or is Zeke the consensus?

I'd personally take Big Ben

Snakebites wrote:I'd be fine with just including anyone later than the mid-60s. DeBuss was a successful and meaningful player on teams into the 70s, not quite to the merger, but pretty close. Just so happens that he left our team in the late 60s. That adds 2 more hall of famers into the game, and brings us up to 15 all stars, so that virtually every team (except the team with the number one pick, perhaps) has 2 and thus a shot at being solid.

Yardley is farther back than I'd be willing to go personally though. He just invented a new type of shot that nobody knew how to defend. He'd probably get killed in today's league.

Vinny wouldn't be anyone's best player regardless though.

Pretty much agree with this. DeBuss would be okay, I suppose, because there's the profile factor and he is borderline time-wise. Guys like Yardley are a no go, at least for me. I guess it's sort of a blend of era and profile.

Pharaoh wrote:I'd be interested to see who went #1...

Or is Zeke the consensus?

I'd personally take Big Ben

For me it's Zeke easily. But part of the fun would finding out stuff like this.

I'd have to go with Zeke. I'd probably pause a little bit on someone like Grant Hill, who I think was definitely more talented, but at the end of the day Zeke is the only guy we've ever had who's been the clear best player on a championship team.

I think with a little stretching and creativity there could be a pool of about 80 players to accommodate 8 teams, going 10 deep. Or if that sounds a little hairy and time consuming, just pick a starting lineup.