Not Loyal, No Journeyman Draft (Post Merger) - Discussion

[ReggiesKnicks]

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

*Pete Maravich as well, but imo he's massively overrated. Don't think I've ever seen him drafted.

Why does he need to be a good three-point shooter at all? There are plenty of stars playing right now who aren't.

Depends on what you mean by star. The only star wing without a legit 3pt shot is probably Butler. Wouldn't consider DeRozan a star, certainly not for the purposes of our games.

Butler (2023 + 2024): 2.0 3PA/G on 39%
SGA (2023 + 2024): 3.1 3PA/G on 34%

Let me make a specific question to make my point clear. Which team would you like the most?

Luka - Derrick White - George Gervin - KG- Gobert
Luka - Derrick White - Andrew Wiggins - KG - Gobert

In a vacuum, Gervin >>>>>>>> Wiggins. It's not even close. Given the modern game is all about (pace and) space, people might argue Gervin is a non 3pt shooter, hence a bad fit.

Gervin wasn't a 3P shooter, that's a factually correct statement.

Wiggins was arguably the 2nd best player on a title team (2022 Warriors).

I'd also argue that the 2nd team isn't necessarily better than the first team.
I'd also argue that team fit is incredibly important in roster construction.

My team just went wire-to-wire in the last game when I had clearly 4 of the top 6 players because GeorgeMarcus had an excellent fitting and cohesive roster.

[flaco]

Butler (2023 + 2024): 2.0 3PA/G on 39%
SGA (2023 + 2024): 3.1 3PA/G on 34%

Not all shots are created the same way. SGA is mostly shooting off the dribble, whereas I bet plenty of Butler's 3s are spot ups. Off-dribble shots are way more difficult.

I'd also argue that the 2nd team isn't necessarily better than the first team.

Personally, I believe the Gervin team is comfortably better, but I also believe Gervin would have had 3pt range. Go figure.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Not all shots are created the same way. SGA is mostly shooting off the dribble, whereas I bet plenty of Butler's 3s are spot ups. Off-dribble shots are way more difficult.

True, but that means SGA isn't providing off-ball spacing.

[durantbird]

This was a very shallow pool, yet George Gervin, Elvin Hayes and Bob Lanier ended up undrafted. All 3 of them are HOFers. Personally, I almost drafted Gervin. Changed my mind the very last second and opted for Wiggins. I was afraid voters would dismiss Gervin as a non 3pt shooter who'd disrupt spacing next to Luka.

Hope we have a conversation about this now that the draft is over. I think there's something fundamentally wrong in the way we judge old school players. Gervin was a career 84% FT shooter. More often than not, FT% is indicative of shooting ability. By all accounts, he was also a great mid-range shooter. Nobody was expecting him to shoot 3s in the 70s/80s. Chances are he would have developed a reliable 3 in the modern era. All he'd have to do is expand his range a little bit. Hate myself right now for passing up an all-time great for Andrew f...ing Wiggins. He's a decent 2-way wing, but Gervin is a basketball legend.

Add David Thompson to this list

[flaco]

Not all shots are created the same way. SGA is mostly shooting off the dribble, whereas I bet plenty of Butler's 3s are spot ups. Off-dribble shots are way more difficult.

True, but that means SGA isn't providing off-ball spacing.

It means he's the only reliable on-ball creator on the team. Everybody else feeds off his playmaking. We know for a fact he was effective in 2020 alongside CP3. That said, SGA was just 21 years old at the time. Hadn't fully developed his game yet. I consider him very similar to Luka in the sense they are both heliocentric ball handlers. Don't think either one of them maximizes his impact if paired with a ball-dominant player. For instance, Luka has a slow start for the Lakers alongside LeBron.

[Fadeaway_J]

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

*Pete Maravich as well, but imo he's massively overrated. Don't think I've ever seen him drafted.

Why does he need to be a good three-point shooter at all? There are plenty of stars playing right now who aren't.

Depends on what you mean by star. The only star wing without a legit 3pt shot is probably Butler. Wouldn't consider DeRozan a star, certainly not for the purposes of our games. Don't think bigs count, especially PnR roll men. The roll man doesn't have to be a shooter.

Let me make a specific question to make my point clear. Which team would you like the most?

Luka - Derrick White - George Gervin - KG- Gobert
Luka - Derrick White - Andrew Wiggins - KG - Gobert

In a vacuum, Gervin >>>>>>>> Wiggins. It's not even close. Given the modern game is all about (pace and) space, people might argue Gervin wasn't shooting 3s, hence he's a bad fit.

If you're building a team around a guy whose entire game is patterned around the "modern game", then yes it wouldn't be a great fit.

I think the word "modern" is doing a lot of work here though. The 2014 Spurs were hardly prehistoric, and they only started one high-volume three-point shooter. This explosion in three-point volume is a very recent phenomenon, so if we're going by the assumption that all teams require that level of shooting to be successful, then yes, a lot of players aren't going to be as valuable.

[Snakebites]

Why does he need to be a good three-point shooter at all? There are plenty of stars playing right now who aren't.

Depends on what you mean by star. The only star wing without a legit 3pt shot is probably Butler. Wouldn't consider DeRozan a star, certainly not for the purposes of our games. Don't think bigs count, especially PnR roll men. The roll man doesn't have to be a shooter.

Let me make a specific question to make my point clear. Which team would you like the most?

Luka - Derrick White - George Gervin - KG- Gobert
Luka - Derrick White - Andrew Wiggins - KG - Gobert

In a vacuum, Gervin >>>>>>>> Wiggins. It's not even close. Given the modern game is all about (pace and) space, people might argue Gervin wasn't shooting 3s, hence he's a bad fit.

If you're building a team around a guy whose entire game is patterned around the "modern game", then yes it wouldn't be a great fit.

I think the word "modern" is doing a lot of work here though. The 2014 Spurs were hardly prehistoric, and they only started one high-volume three-point shooter. This explosion in three-point volume is a very recent phenomenon, so if we're going by the assumption that all teams require that level of shooting to be successful, then yes, a lot of players aren't going to be as valuable.

I don't think he's arguing that all players who are older should be more valuable than they are.

He's just making the case that if there's evidence that a player likely would have had a three point shot in the modern NBA that this could be factored in.

He's also laid out criteria by which that could be done.

I'm not sure where I fall on this 100 percent, but I do think it's a discussion worth having.

[Snakebites]

This was a very shallow pool, yet George Gervin, Elvin Hayes and Bob Lanier ended up undrafted. All 3 of them are HOFers. Personally, I almost drafted Gervin. Changed my mind the very last second and opted for Wiggins. I was afraid voters would dismiss Gervin as a non 3pt shooter who'd disrupt spacing next to Luka.

Hope we have a conversation about this now that the draft is over. I think there's something fundamentally wrong in the way we judge old school players. Gervin was a career 84% FT shooter. More often than not, FT% is indicative of shooting ability. By all accounts, he was also a great mid-range shooter. Nobody was expecting him to shoot 3s in the 70s/80s. Chances are he would have developed a reliable 3 in the modern era. All he'd have to do is expand his range a little bit. Hate myself right now for passing up an all-time great for Andrew f...ing Wiggins. He's a decent 2-way wing, but Gervin is a basketball legend.

Add David Thompson to this list

Always thought David Thompson was a lot more like Dwyane Wade in terms of play style. Less of a shooter.

[parsnips33]

Wish I hadn't sat this game out, loving the discussion

[Fadeaway_J]

Depends on what you mean by star. The only star wing without a legit 3pt shot is probably Butler. Wouldn't consider DeRozan a star, certainly not for the purposes of our games. Don't think bigs count, especially PnR roll men. The roll man doesn't have to be a shooter.

Let me make a specific question to make my point clear. Which team would you like the most?

Luka - Derrick White - George Gervin - KG- Gobert
Luka - Derrick White - Andrew Wiggins - KG - Gobert

In a vacuum, Gervin >>>>>>>> Wiggins. It's not even close. Given the modern game is all about (pace and) space, people might argue Gervin wasn't shooting 3s, hence he's a bad fit.

If you're building a team around a guy whose entire game is patterned around the "modern game", then yes it wouldn't be a great fit.

I think the word "modern" is doing a lot of work here though. The 2014 Spurs were hardly prehistoric, and they only started one high-volume three-point shooter. This explosion in three-point volume is a very recent phenomenon, so if we're going by the assumption that all teams require that level of shooting to be successful, then yes, a lot of players aren't going to be as valuable.

I don't think he's arguing that all players who are older should be more valuable than they are.

He's just making the case that if there's evidence that a player likely would have had a three point shot in the modern NBA that this could be factored in.

He's also laid out criteria by which that could be done.

I'm not sure where I fall on this 100 percent, but I do think it's a discussion worth having.

The one implies the other. If you add a reliable three-point shot to the skills they already have, it inherently makes them more valuable, as it would for any player.

As to how it could be "factored in", that's where we run into an issue. It just becomes even more speculative than usual. FT% by itself doesn't seem like a reliable enough indicator - apart from the guys in the very high 80s and above, the correlation seems to be pretty wide-ranging. Some guys are elite three-point shooters, a few are just plain bad, and then there's a massive group of players somewhere in between. Where do I assume a guy like Gervin lands on that spectrum, let alone Oscar who I've barely seen play?

[ReggiesKnicks]

What if we just accept that basketball has evolved and modern-players typically have a different skill-set than older players?

[flaco]

I think Jaylen Brown is barely a Top 50 player in the NBA, meaning his FGA of 18-21 is incredibly expensive for a player of his caliber. I'm guessing he has been drafted in these games.

Allen Iverson in the modern era would be significantly more efficient. I saw someone joke about him in a discussion thread but he would be a better version of Jalen Brunson.

I don't think anyone is taking away from Gervin as a scorer by saying he was an elite slasher and mid-range player. The thing is, you aren't going to have him taking 3-5 above-the-break 3's because he didn't do that and never proved he could do that. Have him be your secondary shot creator in these games with other floor spacers and his efficiency, which was ATG approaching 300+ TS+ in his prime, would be incredibly impactful.

This gets back to our discussion about Dwyane Wade. Player's don't need to be pigeon holed into modern-day, conceived roles. You are making the same mistake we made yesteryear when we thought every position PG, SG, SF, PF and C had to have a specific characteristic.

Did we not learn that the 5 position labels were, for the most part, preventing the evolution of the actual game of basketball?

There is no need to put labels or limits on players just because they aren't a great 3P shooter so long as they aren't asked to shoot the 3. Utilize George Gervin for his actual skill-set, not an imaginary one.

Regarding Bill Russell, we already saw him re-born in Kevin Garnett and he is arguably the 2nd most impactful player of the data-ball era (1997-Present) by many impact metrics (+/-, On/Off, RAPM, ect).

Why does he need to be a good three-point shooter at all? There are plenty of stars playing right now who aren't.

Problem is, the long 2 is hands down the least efficient shot in today's game. Gervin peaked at 54.4 in 2P%. Can't possibly know how many of his shots were long 2s and how many were dunks, layups, putbacks, you name it. For the sake of discussion, let's assume he peaked at 54.4% in long 2s. Even in this highly unrealistic scenario, his efficiency coresponds to a 36.3% 3pt shooter. That's borderline above average by today's standards. The guy peaked at 60.4 TS% without shooting 3s for crying out loud. Averaged 56.4 for his career despite the attrocious spacing of his era in a league dominated by big men. He would have been unstoppable in today's game. If you aren't giving him a 3pt shot, you massively undervalue his efficiency. I'd argue this is the reason Carmelo flamed out of the league despite being an undeniably crafty scorer. You are basically labeling him an alternative version of Carmelo.

[ReggiesKnicks]

My main issues are Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell. I consider both of them GOAT candidates and I got them in my all-time top 10. Hate the fact I'm hesitant to draft them cause there's no consensus about these guys. Can't hold it against Oscar he wasn't shooting 3s when he played his whole career before the 3pt era. Likewise, cannot hold it against Gervin he wasn't shooting 3s when nobody was expecting him to do so in the 70s/80s.

On the other hand, nobody was expecting from 7'3'' Arvydas Sabonis to shoot 3s in the 80s, yet he was shooting them anyway. You can claim Gervin didn't revolutionize the game like Arvydas did, but that doesn't take away from his shooting ability. I'm sky high on Arvydas too btw, but that's another story.

I think Jaylen Brown is barely a Top 50 player in the NBA, meaning his FGA of 18-21 is incredibly expensive for a player of his caliber. I'm guessing he has been drafted in these games.

Allen Iverson in the modern era would be significantly more efficient. I saw someone joke about him in a discussion thread but he would be a better version of Jalen Brunson.

I don't think anyone is taking away from Gervin as a scorer by saying he was an elite slasher and mid-range player. The thing is, you aren't going to have him taking 3-5 above-the-break 3's because he didn't do that and never proved he could do that. Have him be your secondary shot creator in these games with other floor spacers and his efficiency, which was ATG approaching 300+ TS+ in his prime, would be incredibly impactful.

This gets back to our discussion about Dwyane Wade. Player's don't need to be pigeon holed into modern-day, conceived roles. You are making the same mistake we made yesteryear when we thought every position PG, SG, SF, PF and C had to have a specific characteristic.

Did we not learn that the 5 position labels were, for the most part, preventing the evolution of the actual game of basketball?

There is no need to put labels or limits on players just because they aren't a great 3P shooter so long as they aren't asked to shoot the 3. Utilize George Gervin for his actual skill-set, not an imaginary one.

Regarding Bill Russell, we already saw him re-born in Kevin Garnett and he is arguably the 2nd most impactful player of the data-ball era (1997-Present) by many impact metrics (+/-, On/Off, RAPM, ect).

Problem is, the long 2 is hands down the least efficient shot in today's game. Gervin peaked at 54.4 in 2P%. Can't possibly know how many of his shots were long 2s and how many were dunks, layups, putbacks, you name it. For the sake of discussion, let's assume he peaked at 54.4% in long 2s. Even in this highly unrealistic scenario, his efficiency coresponds to a 36.3% 3pt shooter. That's borderline above average by today's standards. The guy peaked at 60.4 TS% without shooting 3s for crying out loud. Averaged 56.4 for his career despite the attrocious spacing of his era in a league dominated by big men. He would have been unstoppable in today's game. If you aren't giving him a 3pt shot, you massively undervalue his efficiency. I'd argue this is the reason Carmelo flamed out of the league despite being an undeniably crafty scorer.

But Gervin's efficiency would go up if you are insisting he would have more spacing around him, right?

[flaco]

I think Jaylen Brown is barely a Top 50 player in the NBA, meaning his FGA of 18-21 is incredibly expensive for a player of his caliber. I'm guessing he has been drafted in these games.

Allen Iverson in the modern era would be significantly more efficient. I saw someone joke about him in a discussion thread but he would be a better version of Jalen Brunson.

I don't think anyone is taking away from Gervin as a scorer by saying he was an elite slasher and mid-range player. The thing is, you aren't going to have him taking 3-5 above-the-break 3's because he didn't do that and never proved he could do that. Have him be your secondary shot creator in these games with other floor spacers and his efficiency, which was ATG approaching 300+ TS+ in his prime, would be incredibly impactful.

This gets back to our discussion about Dwyane Wade. Player's don't need to be pigeon holed into modern-day, conceived roles. You are making the same mistake we made yesteryear when we thought every position PG, SG, SF, PF and C had to have a specific characteristic.

Did we not learn that the 5 position labels were, for the most part, preventing the evolution of the actual game of basketball?

There is no need to put labels or limits on players just because they aren't a great 3P shooter so long as they aren't asked to shoot the 3. Utilize George Gervin for his actual skill-set, not an imaginary one.

Regarding Bill Russell, we already saw him re-born in Kevin Garnett and he is arguably the 2nd most impactful player of the data-ball era (1997-Present) by many impact metrics (+/-, On/Off, RAPM, ect).

Problem is, the long 2 is hands down the least efficient shot in today's game. Gervin peaked at 54.4 in 2P%. Can't possibly know how many of his shots were long 2s and how many were dunks, layups, putbacks, you name it. For the sake of discussion, let's assume he peaked at 54.4% in long 2s. Even in this highly unrealistic scenario, his efficiency coresponds to a 36.3% 3pt shooter. That's borderline above average by today's standards. The guy peaked at 60.4 TS% without shooting 3s for crying out loud. Averaged 56.4 for his career despite the attrocious spacing of his era in a league dominated by big men. He would have been unstoppable in today's game. If you aren't giving him a 3pt shot, you massively undervalue his efficiency. I'd argue this is the reason Carmelo flamed out of the league despite being an undeniably crafty scorer.

But Gervin's efficiency would go up if you are insisting he would have more spacing around him, right?

Sure, but it would go through the roof if you give him a 3 as well.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Problem is, the long 2 is hands down the least efficient shot in today's game. Gervin peaked at 54.4 in 2P%. Can't possibly know how many of his shots were long 2s and how many were dunks, layups, putbacks, you name it. For the sake of discussion, let's assume he peaked at 54.4% in long 2s. Even in this highly unrealistic scenario, his efficiency coresponds to a 36.3% 3pt shooter. That's borderline above average by today's standards. The guy peaked at 60.4 TS% without shooting 3s for crying out loud. Averaged 56.4 for his career despite the attrocious spacing of his era in a league dominated by big men. He would have been unstoppable in today's game. If you aren't giving him a 3pt shot, you massively undervalue his efficiency. I'd argue this is the reason Carmelo flamed out of the league despite being an undeniably crafty scorer.

But Gervin's efficiency would go up if you are insisting he would have more spacing around him, right?

Sure, but it would go through the roof if you give him a 3 as well.

Sure and CP3 would be the GOAT at 6'6".

[ReggiesKnicks]

I always evaluate players for what they were and what skill-sets they had. I don't play what-ifs.

If you want to play what-ifs, it is in your best interest to do what you want to do in an online forum game

I would never insinuate someone should view players in a certain way or approach an online game in a certain way.

[JimmyPlopper]

I think Adrian Dantley should get more love in our league (and I'm equally to blame). He was excellent at drawing fouls and hitting foul shots at a high rate. Super sixth man type.

[ReggiesKnicks]

I think Adrian Dantley should get more love in our league (and I'm equally to blame). He was excellent at drawing fouls and hitting foul shots at a high rate. Super sixth man type.

Dantley is an interesting one. He would be a difficult cover for the Modern NBA in a 1-4 clear out on one side of the court. He was so strong and skilled that he would need a larger defender on him and a good enough passer to find the open man if a double comes.

[flaco]

But Gervin's efficiency would go up if you are insisting he would have more spacing around him, right?

Sure, but it would go through the roof if you give him a 3 as well.

Sure and CP3 would be the GOAT at 6'6".

Apples and oranges. Can't teach size. Can definitely teach shooting, especially since we know for a fact he was a terrific shooter from mid/long 2pt range and the FT line.

I get selecting a modern star over an unproven shooter from the 80s. It's when I selected Andrew f@cking Wiggins over HOFer George Gervin that I realized there's something wrong in the way we judge players.

Elvin Hayes is widely considered a top 10 PF of all time, at the very least. Honest question: Did anybody consider drafting him?

[Snakebites]

Wish I hadn't sat this game out, loving the discussion

I sat this one out and am in the discussion anyway.