RealGM Top 100 List #35

[penbeast0]

Bird Averitt and Ted McClain joined Dampier at guards.


Okay

Washington - James Jones was 3rd guard. So? He was 1st team All-ABA the year before.
Third guard in NBA. Huge backcourt advantage to Bullets.

Call Riordan and Jones a push.

Hayes/Unseld versus Issel/Gilmore - no way Issel/Gilmore overcome the huge backcourt advantage.

Boston - Westphal is 3rd guard. Once again, 3 guards better than Colonels' best.

Silas/Havlicek versus Issel/Jones at forward - advantage to Celts.

Cowens versus Gilmore - once again no way Gilmore overcomes prime Cowens by enough to win.


This site
http://courtsideanalyst.wordpress.com/2 ... lity-myth/

calls the SRS difference about 4 - which would make the Colonels/Nets/Nuggets about +2 SRS NBA teams.
Maybe ahead of Buffalo, but after the top 4 NBA teams.



Bulls - Van Lier and Sloan destroy Colonels' guards.

Bob Love is the player to offset Issel - he plays great defense, and can score -Issel is a
little better, but Love is a tough match-up for him.

Chet Walker versus Jones? Not really close.

Thurmond provides no offense, but enough defense so Artis doesn't go wild.

You badly underrate Louie Dampier who was a very similar player to Mark Price . . . small but very efficient, great 3 point range (in an era where that was rare), excellent PG skills with outstanding A/T ratio. Van Lier can't make him pay. Hound Dog McClain was a defensive specialists combo guard, not a bad player. Averitt was a big name guy in college who didn't pan out; by the playoffs he was relegated to a clear 3rd guard role. McClain and Wil Jones were not going to score big and were good defenders; Sloan was not a good jumpshooter, relying on bull strength and an inside game; Walker was another slasher, though a lot better; both would be fed inside to Gilmore's shotblocking which slows them down a bit. Issel wasn't a great factor, Love probably was better that year; he was not very efficient but that's because he was the primary long range shooter for that team; Van Lier, Sloan, and Walker were primarily slashers though Walker had a nice midrange game. Chicago is not a good offensive team.

Defensively, Chicago matches up well and might create problems. Love is a bit undersized to deal with Issel; Chicago basically started 3 SFs. Averitt was PG quick and could give Sloan trouble; this was the era of the big physical guard in the NBA with no 3 point line, little quick guys like Calvin Murphy were killing people offensively. But Van Lier will do a good job on Dampier and Thurmond on Gilmore. So, Kentucky goes back to using Issel the way they had the previous few years when he was at his best or else they go straight at Thurmond with Gilmore, Nate's in the tail end of his career -- GS didn't win a title until they dealt him and Chicago dumps him to Cleveland soon. I see Kentucky winning the battle for control of the post and Chicago is too inefficient to stop them; plus Kentucky's rare size/str combo takes away Chicago's other main strength which is offensive rebounding. Chicago was a team that always looked good in the regular season then fell short when everyone upped their defense in the playoffs.

[DQuinn1575]

[You badly underrate Louie Dampier who was a very similar player to Mark Price . . . small but very efficient, great 3 point range (in an era where that was rare), excellent PG skills with outstanding A/T ratio. Van Lier can't make him pay. Hound Dog McClain was a defensive specialists combo guard, not a bad player. Averitt was a big name guy in college who didn't pan out; by the playoffs he was relegated to a clear 3rd guard role. McClain and Wil Jones were not going to score big and were good defenders; Sloan was not a good jumpshooter, relying on bull strength and an inside game; Walker was another slasher, though a lot better; both would be fed inside to Gilmore's shotblocking which slows them down a bit. Issel wasn't a great factor, Love probably was better that year; he was not very efficient but that's because he was the primary long range shooter for that team; Van Lier, Sloan, and Walker were primarily slashers though Walker had a nice midrange game. Chicago is not a good offensive team.

Defensively, Chicago matches up well and might create problems. Love is a bit undersized to deal with Issel; Chicago basically started 3 SFs. Averitt was PG quick and could give Sloan trouble; this was the era of the big physical guard in the NBA with no 3 point line, little quick guys like Calvin Murphy were killing people offensively. But Van Lier will do a good job on Dampier and Thurmond on Gilmore. So, Kentucky goes back to using Issel the way they had the previous few years when he was at his best or else they go straight at Thurmond with Gilmore, Nate's in the tail end of his career -- GS didn't win a title until they dealt him and Chicago dumps him to Cleveland soon. I see Kentucky winning the battle for control of the post and Chicago is too inefficient to stop them; plus Kentucky's rare size/str combo takes away Chicago's other main strength which is offensive rebounding. Chicago was a team that always looked good in the regular season then fell short when everyone upped their defense in the playoffs.

I may underrate Dampier; I don't view him anywhere near as quick dribbling or handling the ball as Price. Didn't turn it over; I think of him more as a steady eddie type; again not as quick as Price. But a great shooter.
But he was rated behind a few guys on the All-ABA teams every year.

The ABA was really a forwards league in talent - Doc, McGinnis, Issel, Wilie Wise, Barnes, Cunningham, Haywood, Hawkins - they match up real well with the NBA at forward.

Center the NBA had the guys who got there around Gilmore's time - Lanier, Unseld,Hayes, Reed, Cowens. After that there weren't great centers, so the NBA maintained the edge.

Guards? Not really a superstar

Carrier and Dampier were bombs away before Artis showed up, but Louie only made 38 3-pointers - hard to count on him to score a lot from there.

You got Sloan right; the Bulls with Van Lier/Sloan Love/Walker the Bulls were kind of backwards

Love and Walker were better outside shooters than Sloan and Van Lier
But Sloan and Van Lier were real good rebounding guards while Chet the Jet and Butter were not.

Walker really wasn't a slasher on the Bulls - lots of one on one, and lots of pump fakes, but really didn't take it to the basket well.

The Bulls always played well in the season, but couldn't get past Wilt & the Lakers or Kareem & the Bucks.
They traded for Nate Thurmond, who had the quadruple double real early in the season, and then bombed big time. The irony was that Cliff Ray played center for the Warriors, who beat the Bulls in Game 7, as the Bulls blew a 4th quarter lead.

The Bulls were old and had no bench.

I just think the Colonels only had 3 scorers, and Love and Sloan/Van Lier could do well defensively on Issel and Dampier.

I'll admit the Colonels give the Bulls trouble, but it goes both ways.

The Colonels beat 27 and 32 win ABA teams to make the finals. Then they play a real young Pacer team that won 45 games. Darnell Hillman could jump and had a great Afro, but still was undersized at center. McGinnis, Billy Knight, and Buse had talent, but the starters averaged 23.6 years of age, and the top 8 still average 23.9.

So beating 3 teams that average 35 wins, with the finals team being 23.6 years old and an undersized center.

You can only beat who you play, but it's hard for me to give them as much credit as a team that beat the Bulls and Bullets.