ABA Team with most talent = Denver Nuggets?

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

Wow! On paper, this team was completely stacked its final year.
Dan Issel
David Thompson
Ralph Simpson
Bobby Jones
and, although he didn't play much then, Marvin Webster.

They had some other decent guys on the bench also.

Even tho' they never won, I can't think of a better ABA roster talent wise. The fit might not have been there but I've always been amazed by that lineup. Thoughts?

[Dutchball97]

Probably yeah. Although there are some other interesting pairings in the ABA like Dr J and Gervin on the 73 Squires or Gilmore, Issel and Dampier on the 72 Colonels.

[penbeast0]

Wow! On paper, this team was completely stacked its final year.
Dan Issel
David Thompson
Ralph Simpson
Bobby Jones
and, although he didn't play much then, Marvin Webster.

They had some other decent guys on the bench also.

Even tho' they never won, I can't think of a better ABA roster talent wise. The fit might not have been there but I've always been amazed by that lineup. Thoughts?

And yet they didn't do appreciably better than 75, maybe because Thompson and Webster were rookies though talented although 75's best player was also a rookie (Bobby Jones).

Kentucky 75, peak Gilmore, Issel, Wil Jones, Louie Dampier, (stiffs at SG)
New York 75 peak Erving, Kenon, Paultz, Brian Taylor, John Williamson (Gale and Melchionni as guards off the bench)

75 was the peak year for the ABA overall, things fell apart in 76 and everyone saw it so the teams didn't have as much cohesion.

[70sFan]

I think Indiana had the best, most well rounded teams in the early 1970s. 1975 Colonels were amazing though

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

@penbeast0 ~ you raise a very good point. I always consider the last year of the ABA as being when the younger league actually surpassed the NBA because of the absorption of players but, yeah, I suppose the team cohesiveness took a hit on the flip side.

@Dutchball97 ~ those Squires just could not hang on to anyone... going back even to Rick Barry.

@70sFan ~ always had trouble putting the 1st half of the ABA's existence in perspective. But absolutely... the Pacers when they had Big George and the Colonels were very talented.

[ty 4191]

@penbeast0 ~ you raise a very good point. I always consider the last year of the ABA as being when the younger league actually surpassed the NBA because of the absorption of players but, yeah, I suppose the team cohesiveness took a hit on the flip side.

@Dutchball97 ~ those Squires just could not hang on to anyone... going back even to Rick Barry.

@70sFan ~ always had trouble putting the 1st half of the ABA's existence in perspective. But absolutely... the Pacers when they had Big George and the Colonels were very talented.

See post #2.

http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=833

[Doctor MJ]

Wow! On paper, this team was completely stacked its final year.
Dan Issel
David Thompson
Ralph Simpson
Bobby Jones
and, although he didn't play much then, Marvin Webster.

They had some other decent guys on the bench also.

Even tho' they never won, I can't think of a better ABA roster talent wise. The fit might not have been there but I've always been amazed by that lineup. Thoughts?

Indeed, which is why Dr. J beating them with seemingly meh supporting talent is such an astonishing accomplishment.

[Doctor MJ]

Probably yeah. Although there are some other interesting pairings in the ABA like Dr J and Gervin on the 73 Squires or Gilmore, Issel and Dampier on the 72 Colonels.

Good wrinkle to bring up with the GErving duo in Virginia.

I also like the mention of the Dampier/Issel/Gilmore trio specifically from a modern point of view. If that team focused on developing Dampier & Issel as 3-point shooters (on a level that no team did back then), that team probably would have been unstoppable in any league with a 3. Might seem like a "Couldn't you say that about plenty of historic teams?" thing, but Dampier was THE 3-point shooter of the first quarter century of the 3 and was pushed to do it less, and meanwhile Issel was one of the original stretch bigs on a team whose star was an inside big.

[penbeast0]

Probably yeah. Although there are some other interesting pairings in the ABA like Dr J and Gervin on the 73 Squires or Gilmore, Issel and Dampier on the 72 Colonels.

Good wrinkle to bring up with the GErving duo in Virginia.

I also like the mention of the Dampier/Issel/Gilmore trio specifically from a modern point of view. If that team focused on developing Dampier & Issel as 3-point shooters (on a level that no team did back then), that team probably would have been unstoppable in any league with a 3. Might seem like a "Couldn't you say that about plenty of historic teams?" thing, but Dampier was THE 3-point shooter of the first quarter century of the 3 and was pushed to do it less, and meanwhile Issel was one of the original stretch bigs on a team whose star was an inside big.

Well, Issel was the offensive star until 75. It was Hubie Brown who made Gilmore the main offensive focus and Issel actually had his statistical worst year . . . not coincidentally the same year Kentucky won the title. Before that he'd outscored Gilmore by between 5 and 10 ppg a year each year they played together.

And it was when Issel came to Kentucky that they moved away from a focus on Dampier and Darrel Carrier shooting more 3's than any other duo in the league (though nothing compared to a modern guard pair of course).

[Doctor MJ]

Probably yeah. Although there are some other interesting pairings in the ABA like Dr J and Gervin on the 73 Squires or Gilmore, Issel and Dampier on the 72 Colonels.

Good wrinkle to bring up with the GErving duo in Virginia.

I also like the mention of the Dampier/Issel/Gilmore trio specifically from a modern point of view. If that team focused on developing Dampier & Issel as 3-point shooters (on a level that no team did back then), that team probably would have been unstoppable in any league with a 3. Might seem like a "Couldn't you say that about plenty of historic teams?" thing, but Dampier was THE 3-point shooter of the first quarter century of the 3 and was pushed to do it less, and meanwhile Issel was one of the original stretch bigs on a team whose star was an inside big.

Well, Issel was the offensive star until 75. It was Hubie Brown who made Gilmore the main offensive focus and Issel actually had his statistical worst year . . . not coincidentally the same year Kentucky won the title. Before that he'd outscored Gilmore by between 5 and 10 ppg a year each year they played together.

And it was when Issel came to Kentucky that they moved away from a focus on Dampier and Darrel Carrier shooting more 3's than any other duo in the league (though nothing compared to a modern guard pair of course).

I understand how it played out back then but don't believe it contradicts my perspective. I'm not looking to say "Go back to the Issel-Dampier Show", but rather looking at skillsets and the universal benefit that better spacing provides when a team understands they are supposed to provide and make use of such space.

There's also the matter that I think as a rule all these guys would have been much better 3-point shooters if they focused on that skill in practice at all times like they do today. In general, I just see the whole turn away from 3-point shooting in the ABA as a body of people who were essentially looking for an excuse to give up on a new strategy before committing to optimize for it in earnest. Understandable why this would occur and not something I mean to be that damning toward, but I have a hard time believing it couldn't have worked back then given that it works so well now.

[penbeast0]

If they had grown up shooting 3's constantly in pickup games and practices rather than practicing the Mikan drill, sure. Issel might even have been a decent 3 point shooter rather than a mid-post scorer. The Issel that joined Kentucky, however, had been disciplined all his life to score in the post, moving out to the mid and high post as he came up against players bigger and stronger than he was, but rarely shooting much beyond the free throw line.

That's why guys like Dampier and Carrier were rare; the skill wasn't taught or practiced growing up except for some of the guys like Levern Tart that shot from long distances in the street ball games as their signature shot.

Thus the coaches didn't get to see high percentage 3 point shooting in games with any consistency so the strategy wasn't apparent to them. Look at the actual 3 point percentages shot in the ABA: .281, .299, .291, .299, .287, .289, .283, .293, .295. That's the equivalent of shooting 42-45% from the field which is below average in the 68-76 era, plus you get less free throws. And those shots weren't contested in many cases, defenses didn't feel a need to attack the 3 point line with that kind of efficiency (though a higher percentage of them were desperation heaves which may mitigate that a bit). With the players and training available to the coaches at the time, a 3 point heavy attack was not a good idea except for particular players like Dampier. And coaches don't get to start training kids from elementary school on; there isn't even a strong AAU type program most places, kids learn from what they see the college and pro players do or what they pick up in street ball.

So, I think you overstate the impact a modern coach and offense would have in the 70s with the actual players that existed.