Retro Draft: Winner is Stun704

[fatlever]

i cant wait to make the "all disrespected team" once we are finished. there are some to 50 guys left that unfortunately dont fit into any of my remaining categories.

[captaincrunk]

i cant wait to make the "all disrespected team" once we are finished. there are some to 50 guys left that unfortunately dont fit into any of my remaining categories.

That's tough to believe.

I'll make my pick in a few hours. Got to grade papers first. Sorry pals.

are you a grad assistant or something?

Senior undergraduate philosophy major. Teaching intern for a freshman course. It's quite fun

Making pick now...

[captaincrunk]

Dolph Schayes for first teamer.

This guy should have been picked five rounds a go. One of the greatest players of all time. He fits so many categories. FO, relatives, 1st teamer, HOF'er, BBall Mecca, loads! I think you guys are scared off the older players because of the period's low shooting percentages.

NBA Champion (1955)
12× NBA All-Star (1951–1962)
6× All-NBA First Team (1952–1955, 1957–1958)
6× All-NBA Second Team (1950–1951, 1956, 1959–1961)
NBA Coach of the Year (1966)
NBA 25th Anniversary Team
NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
Haggerty Award (1948)

I think I'll win the awards for oldest and most white! But I also feel like I'm putting together a juggernaut of a team. These guys are all just ridiculously skilled.

[fatlever]

i cant wait to make the "all disrespected team" once we are finished. there are some to 50 guys left that unfortunately dont fit into any of my remaining categories.

That's tough to believe.

i meant to say "there are some top 50 players left...."

i'd name names but i dont want to give any hints away in case someone is about to pick one.

all my remaining cats are the specific narrow ones like "olympian, dunks/3s, first teamer, relatives"

[Paydro70]

Dolph Schayes for first teamer.

This guy should have been picked five rounds a go. One of the greatest players of all time. He fits so many categories. FO, relatives, 1st teamer, HOF'er, BBall Mecca, loads! I think you guys are scared off the older players because of the period's low shooting percentages.

NBA Champion (1955)
12× NBA All-Star (1951–1962)
6× All-NBA First Team (1952–1955, 1957–1958)
6× All-NBA Second Team (1950–1951, 1956, 1959–1961)
NBA Coach of the Year (1966)
NBA 25th Anniversary Team
NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
Haggerty Award (1948)

I think I'll win the awards for oldest and most white! But I also feel like I'm putting together a juggernaut of a team. These guys are all just ridiculously skilled.

Well, I have been making selections on the assumption that we're kidnapping these players at their primes and putting them in time machines and assembling a team out of them. If that's the case, these old guys really don't have a prayer. Schayes may be an exception because he was such a great shooter, but that still means he's being taken in basically the right place... a guy who comes off the bench to make some jumpers, and hopefully doesn't get annihilated when he's asked to defend Dominique Wilkins (or whomever).

[LamarMatic7]

Well, I have been making selections on the assumption that we're kidnapping these players at their primes and putting them in time machines and assembling a team out of them. If that's the case, these old guys really don't have a prayer. Schayes may be an exception because he was such a great shooter, but that still means he's being taken in basically the right place... a guy who comes off the bench to make some jumpers, and hopefully doesn't get annihilated when he's asked to defend Dominique Wilkins (or whomever).

I think it wouldn't be fair to do so. The game of basketball has evolved too much, so this would be such a disadvantage for the pioneers. I'm on the assumption that we rate a player by what he was able to do during his days. It just wouldn't be fair to put a prime Shaq against 50s players, like Simmons said, for him it would be like playing against "prehistoric Scalabrines".

[SWedd523]

Well, I have been making selections on the assumption that we're kidnapping these players at their primes and putting them in time machines and assembling a team out of them. If that's the case, these old guys really don't have a prayer. Schayes may be an exception because he was such a great shooter, but that still means he's being taken in basically the right place... a guy who comes off the bench to make some jumpers, and hopefully doesn't get annihilated when he's asked to defend Dominique Wilkins (or whomever).

I think it wouldn't be fair to do so. The game of basketball has evolved too much, so this would be such a disadvantage for the pioneers. I'm on the assumption that we rate a player by what he was able to do during his days. It just wouldn't be fair to put a prime Shaq against 50s players, like Simmons said, for him it would be like playing against "prehistoric Scalabrines".

If a guy was dominant in one era, I'm not going to put him any lower than a guy who was dominant in another era, unless the level of competition changes (thinking specifically of Bob Pettit).

I'm also looking at their primes. Some guys had relatively short primes compared to others (thinking specifically of Kevin Johnson), which keeps them out of most discussions for All-Time status. But I'm only concerned about when players were at their absolute best.

[LamarMatic7]

Dale Ellis for Dunks and 3's.



I've had the starting small forward position open for a pretty long time. It is supposed to by filled by a player who woul kill teams from long range, if there are double teams on Hakeem. I was upset for losing Reggie Miller, who I thought is the perfect man for this position, later on there was Glen Rice and this could be called a downgrade. Yet I've come to realize that Dale Ellis's best seasons during the late 80s with the Sonics are up there with Glen's and Reggie's.

1986-87 NBA's Most Improved Player
During his 4 year peak averaged 25,6 points per game (50,5 FG%, 40% 3PT) on a solid Seattle SuperSonics playoffs team.
It's beyond me how during those years he made only one All-NBA team and had one all-star game appearance.

[SWedd523]

Every team needs a sniper and you can do a heck of a lot worse than Dale.

[Paydro70]

I think it wouldn't be fair to do so. The game of basketball has evolved too much, so this would be such a disadvantage for the pioneers. I'm on the assumption that we rate a player by what he was able to do during his days. It just wouldn't be fair to put a prime Shaq against 50s players, like Simmons said, for him it would be like playing against "prehistoric Scalabrines".

...what do I care about the "disadvantage for the pioneers?" If we were making a list of the greatest players, I would have no objection to considering them mostly according to their dominance over their era. But we're supposed to be putting together teams here, which are going up against everybody else's teams. In that case, Schayes is guarding Wilkins, not some SF from the 1950s, and you're right to say that that isn't "fair."

What's the alternative? Does the 3pt line exist only for some players and not others? Or the shot clock, even? I think we have no choice but to imagine these people in a modern context, not somehow compare them to imaginary opponents of their own era.

If a guy was dominant in one era, I'm not going to put him any lower than a guy who was dominant in another era, unless the level of competition changes (thinking specifically of Bob Pettit).

I'm also looking at their primes. Some guys had relatively short primes compared to others (thinking specifically of Kevin Johnson), which keeps them out of most discussions for All-Time status. But I'm only concerned about when players were at their absolute best.

I am also looking only at primes, I think that's a pretty important note when looking at the teams. Fats is getting '96 Kemp, which is pretty good, and there's no regard to anything before or after. Before I realized current players aren't eligible, I was planning on taking T-Mac as my ace in the hole. People can say what they want, that 2003 season of his ranks among the greatest that has ever been played.

Your use of the phrase "unless the level of competition changes" is a pretty loaded one. People who dominated in a league of 8 teams, when basketball was really just catching on as a sport and there was no money in it, are not in the same situation as modern players even ignoring all the obvious changes to the game and conditioning and what not. Hell, Dolph Schayes came into a segregated league!

[SWedd523]

McGrady was one of the first 5 or so guards I thought up before the draft, only to remember he played in Detroit last year. He's one of those guys like Vince who won't be appreciated until a good while after his retirement.


I think if the older guys are going to be discriminated against so much, then we should have limited the years in which the guys played. Sure it's loaded, but it's not Mikan's, Pettit's, Russell's, Wilt's, etc. fault they were so much better than their competition.

If nobody back then was good, then nobody would be able to separate themselves from the pack, and those guys (among others) were able to do so. So for as far as I'm concerned, there won't be any handicap against them

[BigSlam]

Sam Jones = Championship

10× NBA Champion (1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969)
5× NBA All-Star (1962, 1964–1966, 1968)
3× All-NBA Second Team (1965–1967)
NBA 25th Anniversary Team
NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
#24 Retired by the Boston Celtics

Best season:
25.9 ppg
5.1 rebounds per game
2.8 assists per game

One of the best SG's of his generation and the 2nd most ring holder behind only Bill Russell - who is also on my team. Between them alone my team holds 21 rings. Along with the others on my team so far, that makes 33 in total.

I am the ring master.

Suck it.

[Diop]

Dale Ellis for Dunks and 3's.

Dogface!!

I do love the pure shooters and he was definitely one of them. Could shoot as well as anyone.

[Paydro70]

McGrady was one of the first 5 or so guards I thought up before the draft, only to remember he played in Detroit last year. He's one of those guys like Vince who won't be appreciated until a good while after his retirement.


I think if the older guys are going to be discriminated against so much, then we should have limited the years in which the guys played. Sure it's loaded, but it's not Mikan's, Pettit's, Russell's, Wilt's, etc. fault they were so much better than their competition.

If nobody back then was good, then nobody would be able to separate themselves from the pack, and those guys (among others) were able to do so. So for as far as I'm concerned, there won't be any handicap against them

I didn't say "nobody back then was good," nor am I "discriminating" against those players. Certainly I don't know who is "faulting" those guys for being great for their time. They had better be, or else they'd have no business at all dealing with players who did. But the the point is that separating yourself from the pack means something very different when "the pack" was 100 players instead of 400 (which frankly understates the degree of difference).

I'm not saying I will view those players as huge holes or anything. But I'm not looking at Mikan on someone's team as if they were Shaq, or Pettit as Karl Malone.

[SWedd523]

I didn't say "nobody back then was good," nor am I "discriminating" against those players. Certainly I don't know who is "faulting" those guys for being great for their time. They had better be, or else they'd have no business at all dealing with players who did. But the the point is that separating yourself from the pack means something very different when "the pack" was 100 players instead of 400 (which frankly understates the degree of difference).

I'm not saying I will view those players as huge holes or anything. But I'm not looking at Mikan on someone's team as if they were Shaq, or Pettit as Karl Malone.

By "nobody back then was good" I refer to the general argument against guys like Wilt, in that he dominated.... because nobody back then was good. Not that you made that claim.


Great for your era is great for your era, regardless of who your competition is. Back when the league started, everybody was on the same level so the guys who were able to stand out had to have immense talent considering they were all basically amateurs.


If there were only 100 players, then only the 100 best got on the floor. If the current league were to be condensed to the 100 best players, guys like Dwight, LeBron, Durant, etc would still separate from the pack. Not to mention, one could argue that there are a great number of players who don't deserve to be in the league as it is.

[SWedd523]

Sam Jones = Championship

10× NBA Champion (1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969)
5× NBA All-Star (1962, 1964–1966, 1968)
3× All-NBA Second Team (1965–1967)
NBA 25th Anniversary Team
NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
#24 Retired by the Boston Celtics

Best season:
25.9 ppg
5.1 rebounds per game
2.8 assists per game

One of the best SG's of his generation and the 2nd most ring holder behind only Bill Russell - who is also on my team. Between them alone my team holds 21 rings. Along with the others on my team so far, that makes 33 in total.

I am the ring master.

Suck it.

I've debated taking him a couple of times now but if the generic name theory holds true, then he's going to be held in lower esteem than some others. Dude was a baller though.

[fatlever]

sam jones is one of the guys i wanted, but then realized i had no categories left that fit him. glad he didnt end up on the all disrespected team.

jones is probably the first modern style shooting guard.

[countryboi]

mark aguirre single digits....he wore 7 with the clippers

Highlights

2× NBA Champion (1989, 1990)
3× NBA All-Star (1984, 1987–1988)
Naismith College Player of the Year (1980)
Adolph Rupp Trophy (1980)
USBWA Player of the Year (1980)
AP Player of the Year (1980)
UPI Player of the Year (1980)
Sporting News College Player of the Year (1980)
2× Consensus NCAA All-American First Team (1980–1981)

[captaincrunk]

sam jones is one of the guys i wanted, but then realized i had no categories left that fit him. glad he didnt end up on the all disrespected team.

jones is probably the first modern style shooting guard.

I was going to pick either sam jones or Dolph Schayes and decided Schayes was a better fit.

[captaincrunk]

Well, I have been making selections on the assumption that we're kidnapping these players at their primes and putting them in time machines and assembling a team out of them.

So you assumed we had a time machine?

If that's the case, these old guys really don't have a prayer. Schayes may be an exception because he was such a great shooter, but that still means he's being taken in basically the right place... a guy who comes off the bench to make some jumpers, and hopefully doesn't get annihilated when he's asked to defend Dominique Wilkins (or whomever).

I think you underestimate the skill levels immensely. It's called ethnocentrism. "Those people don't look like the people I'm used to, so they must suck."

It would be pretty much (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to pick these guys up in a time machine. You have to have more finesse than that. Teams need a chance to practice with each other anyway. If you wanted to play that game, I would have just taken the 72 win bulls sans MJ and plus some other SG and steamroll every one of you. You have to assume that these guys would be able to update their style of play to new rules and styles.

It isn't like there is new physics, or a different gravity, or fundamentally different people playing the game. In fact this kind of thinking is pretty much anathema to the competition itself. If you just wanted another draft like the last one you could have had it, you're a mod, make another one. This is an all time great competition.

McGrady was one of the first 5 or so guards I thought up before the draft, only to remember he played in Detroit last year. He's one of those guys like Vince who won't be appreciated until a good while after his retirement.


I think if the older guys are going to be discriminated against so much, then we should have limited the years in which the guys played. Sure it's loaded, but it's not Mikan's, Pettit's, Russell's, Wilt's, etc. fault they were so much better than their competition.

If nobody back then was good, then nobody would be able to separate themselves from the pack, and those guys (among others) were able to do so. So for as far as I'm concerned, there won't be any handicap against them

I didn't say "nobody back then was good," nor am I "discriminating" against those players. Certainly I don't know who is "faulting" those guys for being great for their time. They had better be, or else they'd have no business at all dealing with players who did. But the the point is that separating yourself from the pack means something very different when "the pack" was 100 players instead of 400 (which frankly understates the degree of difference).

I'm not saying I will view those players as huge holes or anything. But I'm not looking at Mikan on someone's team as if they were Shaq, or Pettit as Karl Malone.

I'll be honest, and don't shoot the messenger, but you just sound racist now.