1975; That was the year that wasn

[BlackIce]

Here.

I'll take Dave Twardzik.

[penbeast0]

Ok the next step is to write up your regular season. Your roster, their stats, how your depth plays out, your offensive and defensive strengths, etc. At the end of one week we start voting, regardless of whether you wrote something up or not . . . if not, I personally will consider it a sign of a confused and weak front office who is making a lot of mistakes and treat it accordingly in my regular season posting.

Regular season postings will include a head to head series between every possible combination of teams other than your own. Remember, that is half of your final win total so again, getting writeups done on time is key. Good luck.

[Snakebites]

So there is a general part AND one for each of 7 opponents?

Sounds like a Great American Novel as much as it is a writeup.

[Miller4ever]

Is there a due date, professor? I'll be out of town for a while, but I'll work on it on the plane ride or something.

[penbeast0]

(a) Snake, for people to vote on your matchups you need to let them know your team. This is a writeup of yourself, NOT you writing your head to head matchups against everyone else (that you don't need to do). This writeup is due midnight Sunday night EST.

(b) Miller, you have your own team's writeup due at the end of this week. THEN you have 2 weeks to do your judging of all the regular season series that you aren't involved in. With 8 of us, that means 21 matchups you have to call for the regular season. If you do them all, you automatically move 21 games over .500; if you don't get them in on time, you drop 21 games under .500. If you do part of them but not all, you end up somewhere in between. This is your "home record"

(c) Then I will count the results of the judging to see you well you did "on the road." This determines the 4 semifinalists and playoff seedings.

(d) Finally we will have the playoffs.

[SabasRevenge!]

Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly we don't do a write up for all seven teams we will be facing, rather we just write about our team and judge match ups based upon our individual team write ups.

[CellarDoor]

That's what I'm getting.

[Snakebites]

K. I'll throw something out there in hopes that this will create a domino effect that encourages others to do the same:

NEW YORK KNICKS

Draft:

Round 1: Bob Lanier
Round 2: Chet Walker
Round 3: Maurice Lucas
Round 4: Phil Chenier

I believe that here I have built a team which is deficient in absolutely no major areas, and possesses elite level talent coupled with terrific teamwork and a culture that is decisively conducive to winning basketball games.

First, a word about team culture:

Obviously, when selecting a team that was sub- .500 in selected years, this is an inherent concern in MOST situations. I argue that in my case, the team with the additions I have made will be able to slip right back into its winning ways.

Our initial (pre-draft setup) suggests this team will have the culture of an elite winner for 2 key reasons:

1) Coach. Red Holzman's reputation speaks for itself. He won two NBA Championships as a coach in 1970 and 1973, coaching what many consider to be some of the greatest teams ever assembled. He encouraged a team mentality that the Frazier/Reed lead Knicks always greatly prided themselves on and got flashy players like Earl Monroe to buy into a team concept and make personal sacrifices for the good of their team. In the NBA's 50th anniversary festivities, he was named one of the 10 greatest coaches in NBA history, and deservedly so. He also won COY in 1970.

2) Frazier and the Pearl. Simply put, Frazier guy was a baller, a team player, and a straight up winner and legendary clutch/playoff performer. The team struggled this season and those thereabouts because the players around Frazier retired and aged in droves following their championship only a couple years prior. He and his sidekick Monroe gave us the best backcourt in the league, ready made. Supply them with an elite front court (which I believe we have) and watch out. Frazier is the best guard in either league at this stage and most likely would have been a top 2 pick in the draft had the Knicks not been selected.

To speak generally of our additions:

Lanier is a proven class act and terrific team player and a top 3 "pure" center in the game, Chet Walker is a proven ingredient on a championship team who also has first option capacities, and Phil Chenier was All NBA-Second team this selected year and a proven winner as well. Lucas, while a rookie, is the perfect defensive and rebounding role player for this team, and demonstrated his capacity in this regard as Bill Walton's right hand man on the NBA championship Blazers only two years later. He averaged 16/15 in two rounds of the ABA playoffs in the selected year, and did so inspite of playing alongside the dominant Marvin Barnes.

Now for the nuts and bolts:

Offense: We have 3 players: Lanier, Frazier, and Walker, who were top 10 in the NBA in Player Efficiency Rating in selected years. Frazier will lead the charge and has a set off weapons at his disposal that will put what he had in the selected year to absolute shame. In edition to his own devastating penetration and mid-range abilities, he has one of the most talented offensive centers in the game to play with. Lanier's range will make his partnership with Frazier strikingly remeniscient of the one he had with Willis Reed, but his passing ability adds a further dimension to this symbiosis and should make our offensive attack one of the most coherent and efficient this league has to offer. Lanier's range allows him to space the floor and draw an opposing anchor out of the middle, allowing our cutting wings to put their potent skills to good use. His ability to find cutting players and pass out of the post also makes our team incredibly difficult to defend, to say nothing of his own dynamic abilities (24/12 on 51% fg) in selected years.

Our guard rotation would have been perhaps the greatest of all time had it actually existed. Between Frazier, Monroe, and Chenier, we will have TWO elite guards pounding opposing defenses at all times in an overwhelming assault. Frazier's abilities are well known, and Chenier was noted for an extremely well rounded offensive game which included a smooth jumpshot and handles. Monroe is known as one of the most baffling ball handlers and craftiest scorers ever to play the game. Chet Walker's balanced and incredibly efficient offensive game provides additional options for this team and puts an even greater strain on opposing defenses. These perimeter players all draw fouls and will create issues in this regard early and often, especially Walker. It should be noted that Lanier, Chenier, Monroe, Frazier, and Walker are all 80% shooting from the FT line or better, and many are also extremely effective at getting there. Lucas, Jackson, and Bradley all serve secondary roles in this offense, and while not outstanding in their abilities, are all extremely intelligent players who will recognize the supporting nature of their offensive roles while surrounded by 5 absolutely elite scoring options.

Defense: Our team is also rough and tough defensively. Up front, Lanier and Lucas give us enough grit and toughness to match toe to toe with even the most imposing front courts placed before us. Lanier is also an elite shot blocker who can anchor the team's overall defense effectively. On the perimeter Frazier is the best defender his position has ever seen, and has the ability to guard either guard position so whichever guard is the biggest threat is in for an extremely rough night. Chenier was no slouch defensively either, and between he and Frazier (both over 2 steals per game) they will be able to keep pressure on and force turnovers, which will lead to plenty of open-floor opportunities offensively. Chet Walker never made an all defensive team, but had a reputation for toughness, determination, and hard work on the defensive end and proved to be an exceptional fit with a defensive concept in Chicago. Phil Jackson, in addition to being a great locker room guy, made up for his relatively limited offensive skill by putting up supreme defensive effort and hustle, and provides exactly what we want from a forward off the bench.

Rebounding: Simply put, Frazier at point guard (6 rebounds per game) puts us at a considerable advantage here. Lanier and Lucas is an extremely high level rebounding tandem up front, and Chet Walker is rock solid for his position in this capacity as well. We will boast a rebounding advantage against many teams and will never see this as a considerable disadvantage for our team in any matchup.

Rotation:

Lanier (40)/Lucas (8)
Lucas (24)/Jackson (24)
Walker (33)/Bradley (15)
Earl Monroe (24)/Phil Chenier (24)
Walt Frazier (38)/Earl Monroe (10)

An overall note: Our offense runs primarily through Frazier and Lanier, two elite players at their respective (and critical) positions, and Chenier, Monroe, and Chenier offer elite support in the context of this offense. All 5 players have the frightening ability to take over games. Walker was the best offensive player on the successful Bulls teams. Chenier averaged a reasonably efficient 25 ppg in the playoffs in selected years, and Monroe is an elite scoring guard as well. Our passing from Frazier and Lanier puts us at an advantage as well, and our team is no slouch defensively either.

The Knicks struggled with Jackson and Bradley starting in the selected year, but their intelligence, team play, and hustle makes them rock solid as supporting bench players surrounded by such elite level talent. Phil Jackson in particular fills his backup role perfectly with defense and hustle.

Our team contains elite level talent, has an exceptional coach and player leadership, and plays a coherent team game on both ends of the floor, and we believe it is elite in any context, including this one.

[penbeast0]

Writeups get posted in the stickied writeup thread . . . I copied this over to it but you can make your own post there if you want Snake.

[penbeast0]

You aren't late Thunder, you are on time. However, you might want to reconsider putting SG Doug Collins at PF in your minutes breakdown

[BlackIce]

Hurr. I'll get my writeup up by the mid-night deadline.

[penbeast0]

Great! After the last writeup is in, the writeup thread will convert to the regular season thread.

Remember, each matchup you write a judgement for is one game over .500 at home; each matchup you win written by someone else is one game over .500 on the road. The regular season will last two weeks unless everyone is fully posted and everyone is dominating at home.

[penbeast0]

Man, even understanding that this doesn't include garbage time, there are some pretty short rotations for a regular season.

[CellarDoor]

Two things:

One, my bad on not getting my write-up in. I've had a document on my work computer for the last six days, and I just never edited. I'll refrain from adding it now unless told otherwise.

Two, regarding my rotation, it's important to note that my entire team is playing at or below their RS averages in terms of minutes played.

I lied, three things:
I'm going to watch some other people's judgements and try to pull bits of information from them before I do mine. What's our deadline on them?

[SabasRevenge!]

I'd like to address a couple of points from the first judgment:

1. "Intangibles: Don’t love the additions to either team but Boston’s are the less destructive of the two."

I've got to take exception to the notion that the additions to the Celtics are destructive, even "less destructive." The implication is that the team will play worse than the original roster and thus be less effective. On the contrary, I added significant offensive firepower to a team that had nice balance but no dominant scoring. In a league like this, great scorers are plentiful, so a GM has to be able to counter his opponent's punch while getting enough stops. Fortunately, the Celtics have some elite defensive players.

2. "Basically both teams went for the 5 shooter offense rather than role players"

Why can't a player be a shooter and a role player? If Hondo and Cowens were poor scorers would this team be better? Havlicek, Cowens, and White played good defense and every single starter makes significant statistical contributions above and beyond scoring. Gervin and Haywood both averaged nice rebound numbers and over two assists per game. Gervin's TOV% was excellent and Haywood's early career TOV% is great as well. Gervin also added 1.6 steals and 1.6 blocks while Haywood added two blocks. I expect everybody's scoring to decline, but usually lower usage means higher efficiency. We'll have a lot of players in that 15 pts/36 range at high efficiency and our bench is loaded with excellent role players. Really, the only guy who is primarily a shooter is Fred Brown and he's one of the best shooters ever.

3. "Overall, Boston is more likely to play team ball."

I don't think this is a team that is "more likely" to play team ball. It's a team that WILL play team ball. The roster is filled with players who have sacrificed for the betterment of their teams. The leadership is so strong that Haywood and Gervin should be able to buy into more of the team concept. They're primary scorers when they're on the floor anyways. My other additions, Brown and Nater, were renowned team first guys.

[Snakebites]

To clarify before I begin judging:

So we are judging based on our own opinions and on writeups?

Cellar doesn't have one and he still won both of his posted matchups (not complaining, as I was guilty of the exact same thing last time). I just want some clarification on how I should assess the Bucks.

[penbeast0]

YEs, we are. I admit, that while I read and thought about all the writeups, I really went more off my own knowledge (this was the period where I really became a basketball junkie) and the rotation lists which everyone at least did do. I might have penalized a couple of players more for having nothing more than a rotation, but that's a choice y'all can make. And, if there are good points made here, I will try to incorporate them into the next 12 writeups I still have to complete.

P.S. Really, only Freddie Brown is purely a scorer? Not Gervin who not only didn't play defense but hated to bring the ball upcourt or handle it unless he was ready to score? Actually, while Freddie was an instant offense guy, he also handled well enough to play combo guard and wasn't a terrible defender. As for the 5 shooter comment, I think it's legit. These are proud talented men and Havlicek, Cowens, and White aren't going to give up almost 2/3 of their shots (about what it would take to keep shots by the starting lineup the same) to Gervin and Haywood -- at the same time, Gervin and Haywood both were pure scorers at this point in their careers (Haywood self destructed then came back as a role player). I think it's a legit concern and one I had to watch for too otherwise Bob Love would be starting ahead of Wil Jones.

[SabasRevenge!]

P.S. Really, only Freddie Brown is purely a scorer? Not Gervin who not only didn't play defense but hated to bring the ball upcourt or handle it unless he was ready to score? Actually, while Freddie was an instant offense guy, he also handled well enough to play combo guard and wasn't a terrible defender. As for the 5 shooter comment, I think it's legit. These are proud talented men and Havlicek, Cowens, and White aren't going to give up almost 2/3 of their shots (about what it would take to keep shots by the starting lineup the same) to Gervin and Haywood -- at the same time, Gervin and Haywood both were pure scorers at this point in their careers (Haywood self destructed then came back as a role player). I think it's a legit concern and one I had to watch for too otherwise Bob Love would be starting ahead of Wil Jones.

I suppose the same could be said of drafting Boone and Love, who attempted over 20 and over 21 shots per game respectively, and of moving 1974 All-ABA player Dan Issel to the bench. Not one Celtics player attempted 20 shots per game, though a few got close. You can't arbitrarily say that White, Cowens, and Hondo will have to give up almost 2/3 of their shots, especially when talking about an opponent's team. This is a 48 minute game with rotations including a mix of bench players and starters.

My point is that it was inevitable that every team would be supplementing their roster with players who add offensive prowess. If it's a problem for one of us, then it's a problem for all of us; it's just a matter of degrees. When we're talking about a Celtics team that was renowned for a "one for all, all for one" attitude, I don't think it will be an issue.

It's also inevitable that every single player would be asked to sacrifice if the 1975 ABA/NBA was suddenly contracted to eight teams and I'll judge with the assumption that these players had already had at least a season to mesh with their team.

Anyways, this game has been really interesting and great so far and these discussions are a part of the process. Thanks for getting this going, pen.

[penbeast0]

Funny thing about this discussion we are having over the Celts -- I actually picked them to win both series that I have judged them in so far.

Second, Kentucky added Boone (18.7 fga/36) to the starting lineup instead of Bird Averitt (18.0fga/36) for a total addition of 0.7fga/36 while also subbing in Wes Unseld (6.7fga.36) for Dan Issel (16.4fg/36) so we actually decreased the amount of shots our starting lineup takes by about 9 shots per 36! -- of course we make up for it by having 3 of our 4 main reserves be decent volume scorers and having more guys who make the extra pass instead of jacking up quick shots-- and we improve in base efficiency, pick setting, and playmaking which should all help our offense too. But we didn't go for the "add more shooting to the offense and hope it will all work out" theory.

Finally Cellar -- please put your writeup in the writeup thread, not here (using the edit key to put edit into the short writeup your wrote earlier), it makes it a lot easier for judges to find them.

[SabasRevenge!]

Funny thing about this discussion we are having over the Celts -- I actually picked them to win both series that I have judged them in so far.

Yeah, but I had to nitpick the one negative thing you said about them!!!