BaTATAS 1.0: DISCUSSION THREAD 1 - LOCK PLEASE!!!

[CoolKids]

[quote="Hooplah"]

Wilt scored 50 a game, if he can't score 10 ppg in todays NBA, does that mean Dwight could score 60, 70 or more ppg in Wilt's era?

(Mutombo finger wag) "No no no".

Wilt: 7'1 275.

Modern day centers: Dwight: 6'11 240, Bosh: 6'10 228, Garnett: 6'11 220, Duncan 6'11 248, Chandler: 7'1 235, Noah: 6'11 232, Horford: 6'10 245, Hickson 6'9 242, Biyombo: 6'9 229, Chuck Hayes 6'6 240

Hibbert is probably the only current center as big as Wilt was. He's 7'2 278.[/quote]
Dwight being guarded by 6'4 white dudes? Yea

[MagicFan32]

Wilt scored 50 a game 1 year, then led the league in assists in another, all while being a dominant defensive player and rebounder.

if he were in todays league he'd be the most dominant big, by far. it wouldn't be even close. there is not even a single big in the NBA right now that could lead the league in assists if all he did was try to pass the ball

[Grinditout]

I feel like alot of the 70s stars get overlooked and might now have as much name value/flash as more recent guys.

With that being said, glad I got Van Lier, great defensive PG who who can distribute off the bench to backup Nash.

[spree8]

Gasol is interesting in that he's already 28/29, but has had a short NBA career which is a disadvantage in this particular competition. It's not a bad pick but like you said he probably could have been around a little late, but I guess better not to take the chance and grab him early.

I considered Gasol. I mean sure the body of work isn't that great yet but we all know how skilled he is on offense and defense. even though a guy like vlade has a larger body of work, i think the better overall player would be gasol

I dont know about that, obviously Gasol would be the better defender, although Vlade was pretty solid in that regard.

But on the offense I see Vlade having just as much of an advantage just due to his elite passing skills. Vlade was the type pf center who was a solid at everything with the advantage of being a really good passer. Also Vlade has a little more size than Gasol. I'd say they would be on the same level if we brought the 28 year Divac back into the NBA. Both are top 3 centers in todays NBA.

How does Vlade have size on Gasol? They're both 7'1" but Marc is actually 20lbs heavier than Divac. Also, Vlade does have a slight edge in passing #'s, but not by a landslide. His career average is 3 per where Gasol's is @ 2.7 per. Season highs are 5 for Divac and 4 for Gasol. Pretty close, and not only in numbers but in passing skills as well. However, like you mentioned, Marc's defense is superior to Vlade's. He was DPOY, where Vlade was the flop king.

[Grinditout]

I considered Gasol. I mean sure the body of work isn't that great yet but we all know how skilled he is on offense and defense. even though a guy like vlade has a larger body of work, i think the better overall player would be gasol

I dont know about that, obviously Gasol would be the better defender, although Vlade was pretty solid in that regard.

But on the offense I see Vlade having just as much of an advantage just due to his elite passing skills. Vlade was the type pf center who was a solid at everything with the advantage of being a really good passer. Also Vlade has a little more size than Gasol. I'd say they would be on the same level if we brought the 28 year Divac back into the NBA. Both are top 3 centers in todays NBA.

How does Vlade have size on Gasol? They're both 7'1" but Marc is actually 20lbs heavier than Divac. Also, Vlade does have a slight edge in passing #'s, but not by a landslide. His career average is 3 per where Gasol's is @ 2.7 per. Season highs are 5 for Divac and 4 for Gasol. Pretty close, and not only in numbers but in passing skills as well. However, like you mentioned, Marc's defense is superior to Vlade's. He was DPOY, where Vlade was the flop king.

You got me on the size, I always thought Marc was 6'11. And if you watched Vlade he was a pretty solid defender, including all the flops. I still feel Vlade is a bit better offensively but that's just my opinion. Anyways I'll just leave it at both are really really good centers.

[CoolKids]

Wilt scored 50 a game 1 year, then led the league in assists in another, all while being a dominant defensive player and rebounder.

if he were in todays league he'd be the most dominant big, by far. it wouldn't be even close. there is not even a single big in the NBA right now that could lead the league in assists if all he did was try to pass the ball

There were 10 black players in the league when he played rofl.

[spree8]

The longevity thing was CLEARLY stated when LBP first made this whole thing before anyone started drafting, it's in the original post. To complain only now means that some people didn't fully read his post or understand it and should have clarified before joining or making their picks.

Why is it hard to understand the value of having someone who has a long lasting career over the value of someone with a much shorter career? Wouldn't a ball club have to deliberate or think hard about having a guy who can give you 10+ great years VS someone who can only give you 4-5 excellent years?

The thing with current players is that since we're basing this whole competition on actual games played, then of course they would be at a disadvantage as it's entire subjective as to how the rest of their careers would play out, otherwise people can say "Oh he's definitely going to have 4-5 more great years" and it would be subjective.

I love the discussion and activity today...but Ginditout is absolutely right. There was plenty of time to discuss the rules and make adjustments, if needed. Once the draft starts...I am assuming that everyone knows the rules. Why would you play a game when you didn't know the rules? It's definitely become quite clear that several people on here just saw B-a-T and said sign me up...without reading much of anything.

As for the longevity discussion....
The entire point of building an NBA team is to win NBA titles. Everyone here should be building the most cohesive team they can...but one that they would personally love to see play together. At the end of the day, your team is competing against the other 19 teams that have been assembled. If you bring me two teams...Team A has an 8 man rotation, in which, 6 of those players played 9+ All-Star seasons and the other 2 played 6+. Team B has an 8 man rotation that is slightly superior in terms of their player's peak seasons to Team A. However, Team B has 3 players who, for one reason or another, only had 4 All-Star level seasons.

When I look at those teams, I see a team that will be competing for 9 or more seasons against a team that will only be competing for 4 seasons. Even is Team B is slightly superior in talent...I'm taking Team A 10 times out of 10. That was made clear in the OP.

I read the rules thoroughly before playing. Don't you remember me asking twice about the "subjective" aspect? I don't have a problem with the rules at all. However, the subjective part is a huge deal that everyone seems to view differently. It has absolutely nothing to do with reading rules...not sure why some keep bringing up the rules lol. It's totally about the subjective part.

What is made clear in the rules is that you want a team that can compete for approx 10 years. The focus within the rules is mainly on players like GHill, Penny and Mullin. As they only had a few years of peak performance due to injuries. What it does not make clear is newer players. This is where the subjective stuff comes into play and how people are viewing it incorrectly.

People are misunderstanding the rules of longevity and confusing it with injured players. It is up to the opinions of the participants to decide on the longevity of new players. Some would prefer to remain optimistic about the futures of current and rising stars where others remain pessimistic. This is where the problem lies. This is also what I'm just trying to get a consensus on but I fear it won't happen because it seems to be split 50/50.

This doesn't affect my team as they all have had 8+ years of pro experience, and the Gasol argument has proven to be unwarranted because by your rules, we are still considering ABA and Overseas pro play (Marc and Dr J)...

Just wanted to clear the air with that bro.

[supplyndemand69]

I'm going to say that when it comes to judging the "newer" players and longevity, if a player has been injury prone, then yes, its safe to assume that patten will continue. Now if they have been mostly healthy, I'm going to think it continues for a while.

[TDJacksonville]

I'm going to say that when it comes to judging the "newer" players and longevity, if a player has been injury prone, then yes, its safe to assume that patter will continue. Now if they have been mostly healthy, I'm going to think it continues for a while.

so my younger guys fit tge bill sans howard.

anyways thoughts on okur?

[LBPTarHeel27]

As far as the young players go....

I can understand taking a player that is currently playing and is towards the end or past their prime...and still expecting them to be viewed as the all-time greats. However, the guys that have only been in the league for a few years are still a risk and should be viewed that way. Does a guy like Durant have the ability to keep going like he is for another 8-10 years....sure. However, when I look at Durant...this is what I think (and just to clarify, Durant is currently my 2nd favorite player in the league...after Oladipo lol)...

-Pure scorer who's length allows him to be a capable defender.
-Passive when paired with an aggressive scorer.
-Casual demeanor in the NBA Finals, letting his rival get the best of him
-Couldn't carry his team to the finals after losing Harden and Westbrook's injury (like his rival did with Cleleland and a worse supporting cast, even considering the losses of OKC).
-1 good and 5 great seasons according to his standards

That resume is not an all-time great. He was drafted as if he is one. Right now, he isn't better than T-Mac in his prime, who went several picks later. He doesn't compare to Allen Iverson at this point...a guy that took a terrible team to the finals, was an elite defender, and even more of an elite scorer.

That's my two cents.

[Hooplah]

As far as the young players go....


-Pure scorer who's length allows him to be a capable defender.
-Passive when paired with an aggressive scorer.
-Casual demeanor in the NBA Finals, letting his rival get the best of him
-Couldn't carry his team to the finals after losing Harden and Westbrook's injury (like his rival did with Cleleland and a worse supporting cast, even considering the losses of OKC).
-1 good and 5 great seasons according to his standards

That resume is not an all-time great. He was drafted as if he is one. Right now, he isn't better than T-Mac in his prime, who went several picks later. He doesn't compare to Allen Iverson at this point...a guy that took a terrible team to the finals, was an elite defender, and even more of an elite scorer.

That's my two cents.

"Passive when paired with an aggressive scorer"

You mean when paired with a shoot first point guard he doesn't always get the ball enough?

"Casual demeanor in the NBA finals, letting his rival get the best of him"

Durant played great but the Heat were the better, more experienced team. Harden was more to blame.

Durant at age 23 in his first NBA finals:

G1: 34 pts. on 60% shooting
G2: 32 54%
G3: 25 57%
G4: 28 47%
G5: 32 54%

Lebron at age 24 in his first finals:

G1: 14 pts. 25% FG
G2: 25 42%
G3: 25 39%
G4: 24 33%

Then there was his 2nd finals in 2011.

"Couldn't carry his team to the finals after losing Harden and Westbrook's injury (like his rival did with Cleveland and a worse supporting cast, even considering the losses of OKC)."

Without Westbrook or Harden, how did Durant have a better support cast than Lebron's Cavs?! Ibaka? The Cavs had defenders and rebounders (Big Z, Varejao) Martin? Cavs had plenty of 3pt shooters.

The idea that Lebron didn't have a standard NBA supporting cast is a myth, he was just missing his Scottie Pippen.

[WillyJakkz]

My counter to the Durant "pessimists" look at the team around him.

The Commissioner (LBP's) statement of Durant and his Finals performance teammates etc shows just how low his Bball IQ is but I digress, it's all opinion and that's completely respected by me.

Focusing on the round he was picked is asinine.

I'd be more concerned w putting a bunch of 20+ FGA ballhogging players on one team like the majority of you have done

[WillyJakkz]

Anyway so glad my #2 and #3 options got took so I wouldn't talk myself outta getting my #1 option Brad Daugherty, in the 8th rd no less.

One of the better C's from the mid 80's- mid 90's.

He may actually fit in better w my starters than Deke.

[Skin]

Anyway so glad my #2 and #3 options got took so I wouldn't talk myself outta getting my #1 option Brad Daugherty, in the 8th rd no less.

One of the better C's from the mid 80's- mid 90's.

He may actually fit in better w my starters than Deke.

I think he's a good pick here, but the obvious reason why he's still available is because his career was cut short with back injury and he never played basketball after the age of 28.

[CoolKids]

Lmao mehmet okur

[Skin]

Lmao mehmet okur

Gotta admit that was bad.

[WillyJakkz]

Anyway so glad my #2 and #3 options got took so I wouldn't talk myself outta getting my #1 option Brad Daugherty, in the 8th rd no less.

One of the better C's from the mid 80's- mid 90's.

He may actually fit in better w my starters than Deke.

I think he's a good pick here, but the obvious reason why he's still available is because his career was cut short with back injury and he never played basketball after the age of 28.

Again:

The Longevity vs Impact debate (which btw alot of you guys seem to be dodging, hopefully some vet OG's like Manhatten, Warpsite, and Snakebites will give their input on, though they all love them some old school players they have lots of bball knowledge).

Big Dukie/ Daugherty in about 6 1/4 NBA seasons had a bigger impact in his career which led to the Cavs success moreso than many of the C's who were chosen before him, maybe even Deke as well and he's on my team.

He was low usage, put up 19/10 career on about 13 shots but enough of that.

Look forward to the roster/ pimpin' page to see guys explain the chemistry (x2) of their at least 5 players w 20+ FGA's to then try to convince how they'll win a title. Compete maybe yes, win.....

[Smash3]

Anyway so glad my #2 and #3 options got took so I wouldn't talk myself outta getting my #1 option Brad Daugherty, in the 8th rd no less.

One of the better C's from the mid 80's- mid 90's.

He may actually fit in better w my starters than Deke.

I think he's a good pick here, but the obvious reason why he's still available is because his career was cut short with back injury and he never played basketball after the age of 28.

Again:

The Longevity vs Impact debate (which btw alot of you guys seem to be dodging, hopefully some vet OG's like Manhatten, Warpsite, and Snakebites will give their input on, though they all love them some old school players they have lots of bball knowledge).

Big Dukie/ Daugherty in about 6 1/4 NBA seasons had a bigger impact in his career which led to the Cavs success moreso than many of the C's who were chosen before him, maybe even Deke as well and he's on my team.

He was low usage, put up 19/10 career on about 13 shots but enough of that.

Look forward to the roster/ pimpin' page to see guys explain the chemistry (x2) of their at least 5 players w 20+ FGA's to then try to convince how they'll win a title. Compete maybe yes, win.....

Yup that´s very important considering many teams have chosen players with very high usage, but it also depends on the kind of players you chose, some players took a lot of FGA due to the teams they were playing on. Then of course you have players who will demand 20+ fga(chuckers, lack of playmaking, etc) even on good teams which will obviously affect chemistry

[spree8]

Love that Dale Davis picture lol

[WillyJakkz]

Look forward to the roster/ pimpin' page to see guys explain the chemistry (x2) of their at least 5 players w 20+ FGA's to then try to convince how they'll win a title. Compete maybe yes, win.....

Yup that´s very important considering many teams have chosen players with very high usage, but it also depends on the kind of players you chose, some players took a lot of FGA due to the teams they were playing on. Then of course you have players who will demand 20+ fga(chuckers, lack of playmaking, etc) even on good teams which will obviously affect chemistry

And see this is where longevity comes back and how do you say...bite people in the ass?

Many a poster screamed longevity longevity longevity as their basis for their ranking and as their reason to diss the Durant pick while boosting their own players who played x amount of years but here's the thing:

Did they take into account that high usage Player X spent years of being the man on HIS team, why would Player X suddenly have the temperament to fit in w other players who are used to being the man and yet "compete for years" which btw is what this thing is all about?

Wouldn't longevity suggest multiple high usage Player X's wouldn't be accustomed to fitting in w until later in their careers?