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

[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.

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.....

No, it's not a longevity vs impact debate. Impact isn't a category to judge. Daugherty had a short career. In a game that measures Longevity, it's not a mystery why he was still there. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing his impact. It was short and sweet.

[Grinditout]

Lol at the longevity affecting whether or not the player can share the ball with other. It's more on personality and style of play.

Garnett and Allen were able to give up shots in Boston.

Earl Monroe was able to give up a lot of his shots when he joined NY.

you have to look at the personalities/style of play to judge whether or not they can share/fit with others, NOT a career of high usage.

[Skin]

Lol at the longevity affecting whether or not the player can share the ball with other. It's more on personality and style of play.

Garnett and Allen were able to give up shots in Boston.

Earl Monroe was able to give up a lot of his shots when he joined NY.

you have to look at the personalities/style of play to judge whether or not they can share/fit with others, NOT a career of high usage.

Excellent point. ...and since personality is sometimes hard to judge, I think being a good passer and having a nice assist avg goes a long ways towards displaying how well a player would be open to sharing the ball. I also think all those guys who were so close to getting championship but never could like Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Drexler, T-Mac, Hill, Webber.... even though they were the top dogs on their teams, I wouldn't knock them on cohesiveness cause I know how badly they would've welcomed help on their teams in order to win.

[WillyJakkz]

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.....

No, it's not a longevity vs impact debate. Impact isn't a category to judge. Daugherty had a short career. In a game that measures Longevity, it's not a mystery why he was still there. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing his impact. It was short and sweet.

Impact isn't it's own separate category because impact is what we are all likely taking into account when we pick said players, at least I hope.

You chose Ralph Sampson, arguably the poster child of potential destroyed by injury who had basically 4 seasons as an impact player but not longevity.

Personally I will take Ralph Sampson's impact on the game as a player for 4 yrs many players chosen in this draft as his short term impact had a greater effect on his team winning or having a chance to win vs a guy like Mitch Richmond, Alex English, DeBuscherre, World B Free, etc etc since the premise in this tournament is which team would win or has the best chance to win a theoretical matchup vs the other teams for multiple seasons and the greater impact players give said team a better chance to win although the window is shortened (longevity).

That's how they intertwine, not sure how you're not seeing it.

I'll gladly take a high impact short window player when I have a long term solution in place already.

[Skin]

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.....

No, it's not a longevity vs impact debate. Impact isn't a category to judge. Daugherty had a short career. In a game that measures Longevity, it's not a mystery why he was still there. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing his impact. It was short and sweet.

Impact isn't it's own separate category because impact is what we are all likely taking into account when we pick said players, at least I hope.

You chose Ralph Sampson, arguably the poster child of potential destroyed by injury who had basically 4 seasons as an impact player but not longevity.

Personally I will take Ralph Sampson's impact on the game as a player for 4 yrs many players chosen in this draft as his short term impact had a greater effect on his team winning or having a chance to win vs a guy like Mitch Richmond, Alex English, DeBuscherre, World B Free, etc etc since the premise in this tournament is which team would win or has the best chance to win a theoretical matchup vs the other teams for multiple seasons and the greater impact players give said team a better chance to win although the window is shortened (longevity).

That's how they intertwine, not sure how you're not seeing it.

I'll gladly take a high impact short window player when I have a long term solution in place already.

Well for me Sampson is my back up C. Reducing his minutes is a saving grace for him. Daugherty is your back up also. So you're fine. The point I was arguing was why he was still there. You seemed surprised by it. I understood it differently. As for impact, I have a greater fear for those out there who have players in their Starting 5 with relatively short impactful careers.

[spree8]

Kenny Anderson! lol

[LBPTarHeel27]

Pick's comin...couple miniutes.

[Grinditout]

I like the Wallace pick up, I feel LBP has one of the strongest teams in this thing.

[Smash3]

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.....

No, it's not a longevity vs impact debate. Impact isn't a category to judge. Daugherty had a short career. In a game that measures Longevity, it's not a mystery why he was still there. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing his impact. It was short and sweet.

Impact isn't it's own separate category because impact is what we are all likely taking into account when we pick said players, at least I hope.

You chose Ralph Sampson, arguably the poster child of potential destroyed by injury who had basically 4 seasons as an impact player but not longevity.

Personally I will take Ralph Sampson's impact on the game as a player for 4 yrs many players chosen in this draft as his short term impact had a greater effect on his team winning or having a chance to win vs a guy like Mitch Richmond, Alex English, DeBuscherre, World B Free, etc etc since the premise in this tournament is which team would win or has the best chance to win a theoretical matchup vs the other teams for multiple seasons and the greater impact players give said team a better chance to win although the window is shortened (longevity).

That's how they intertwine, not sure how you're not seeing it.

I'll gladly take a high impact short window player when I have a long term solution in place already.

Well now that´s just stupid English transformed Nuggets which were close to rock bottom at that time, to annual playoff contenders. And for the rest one player does not win a championship, that doesn´t mean they lacked impact.

[LBPTarHeel27]

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

Gotta say man, you crossed the line a bit there. You like to play off your insults by saying something that is complete BS at the end. "That's completely respected by me." Not something you can follow up a blatant insult with.

You like to go around these boards and act like you are the almighty poster...giving off the impression that we should be so happy to get to read your nonsense. Some one disagrees with you or views something that happened differently and they immediately have a terrible "basketball IQ". At least insult me correctly if you are going to...you are referring to my knowledge of the game, not my mind for the game while on the floor.

Basketball IQ: http://www.bloguin.com/runthefloor/2013 ... ll-iq.html


It is all opinion, but there were a lot of people that shared my opinion while Miami was playing OKC in the Finals. Durant let LeBron run the show and Durant was just happy to be there. He did not show the will and determination to win that an all-time great should. I believe if he gets another crack at the Finals, he will show those things. However, you don't even know if he will get there. You don't know if he will bump knees with a guy, just like someone he knows well did, and suffer a freak knee injury. You don't know if he evolves his game. That is why, regardless of his talent, he isn't worth a pick that high. Like I said, I love him as a player...outside of my man crush on Oladipo, Durant is my favorite player in the league.

My post about young players compared to those that have completed their primes was made as a general example. I was trying to single you out...even though I know you like that and just look to bait and love to bait others. I should have used Melo as an example. Would have saved me some time.

[LBPTarHeel27]

I like the Wallace pick up, I feel LBP has one of the strongest teams in this thing.

Thanks man...think he fits in perfectly. Nice contrast to Dantley and can run with Kidd while bringing some strong defense to the wing. He is great at producing steals and that will lead to some nice J-Kidd fast breaks.

I was deciding if I should take him or another guy...they were 1a. & 1b. on my list. Hoping 1b. falls to 166.

As for you...lol...

I think you have made a few of the most under the radar and undrrated picks in this draft. You aren't going for flashy names but they are great picks. Both Kiki & Norm were Top 5 on my big board before you took them. You know I wanted Mullin. Vlade is one of the most underrated players of all time. Pair all that with Nash + Dirk + Duncan...you are sitting in a nice spot too.

(Side note...one of my good buddies has a golden retriever that does THE MOST AMAZING trick I have ever seen. He is a big Lakers fan and taught "Kobe" this trick...when he says "Kobe! How does Vlade play defense?" the dog falls to the ground and rolls on her back. Greatest....everrrrr....lol.)

[LBPTarHeel27]

No, it's not a longevity vs impact debate. Impact isn't a category to judge. Daugherty had a short career. In a game that measures Longevity, it's not a mystery why he was still there. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing his impact. It was short and sweet.

Impact isn't it's own separate category because impact is what we are all likely taking into account when we pick said players, at least I hope.

You chose Ralph Sampson, arguably the poster child of potential destroyed by injury who had basically 4 seasons as an impact player but not longevity.

Personally I will take Ralph Sampson's impact on the game as a player for 4 yrs many players chosen in this draft as his short term impact had a greater effect on his team winning or having a chance to win vs a guy like Mitch Richmond, Alex English, DeBuscherre, World B Free, etc etc since the premise in this tournament is which team would win or has the best chance to win a theoretical matchup vs the other teams for multiple seasons and the greater impact players give said team a better chance to win although the window is shortened (longevity).

That's how they intertwine, not sure how you're not seeing it.

I'll gladly take a high impact short window player when I have a long term solution in place already.

Well now that´s just stupid English transformed Nuggets which were close to rock bottom at that time, to annual playoff contenders. And for the rest one player does not win a championship, that doesn´t mean they lacked impact.

Yeah...English was a stud. Another one of the heavily underrated stars of all time. The longevity and impact he had makes him a far greater pick than Sampson, in my mind.

[Grinditout]

(Side note...one of my good buddies has a golden retriever that does THE MOST AMAZING trick I have ever seen. He is a big Lakers fan and taught "Kobe" this trick...when he says "Kobe! How does Vlade play defense?" the dog falls to the ground and rolls on her back. Greatest....everrrrr....lol.)

[EArl]

pick coming up.

[Grinditout]

pick coming up.

Mashburn is nice, although there were a few other options at SF according to my board. But a good pick nontheless.

[EArl]

(Side note...one of my good buddies has a golden retriever that does THE MOST AMAZING trick I have ever seen. He is a big Lakers fan and taught "Kobe" this trick...when he says "Kobe! How does Vlade play defense?" the dog falls to the ground and rolls on her back. Greatest....everrrrr....lol.)

Everyone bagged on Vlade, but he was a good player.

Also reminded me of this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKhP3PnB_xM[/youtube]

[EArl]

pick coming up.

Mashburn is nice, although there were a few other options at SF according to my board. But a good pick nontheless.

Really needed a 3 point shooter. My squad lacks 3 point shooters and I personally think he is the best one available at doing that.

[MagicFan32]

center/pf market is hard to evaluate right now, lots of similar guys. took kevin willis because i want my bigs to be good rebounders and defenders, and have enough offensive ability to be respected. You don't win championships with bigs that don't rebound or play defense

[LBPTarHeel27]

pick coming up.

Mashburn is nice, although there were a few other options at SF according to my board. But a good pick nontheless.

Really needed a 3 point shooter. My squad lacks 3 point shooters and I personally think he is the best one available at doing that.

I think you have one of the better teams (and I do like the Mash pick), so don't take this the wrong way, but....did you really look?

If 3pt shooting was what you were going for, there were a few MUCH better options out there. Especially considering the injury problems that Mash faced. 18 games, 48 games, 24 games, 19 games....those aren't games missed....those are games played for an entire season.

[EArl]

Mashburn is nice, although there were a few other options at SF according to my board. But a good pick nontheless.

Really needed a 3 point shooter. My squad lacks 3 point shooters and I personally think he is the best one available at doing that.

I think you have one of the better teams (and I do like the Mash pick), so don't take this the wrong way, but....did you really look?

If 3pt shooting was what you were going for, there were a few MUCH better options out there. Especially considering the injury problems that Mash faced. 18 games, 48 games, 24 games, 19 games....those aren't games missed....those are games played for an entire season.

Honestly no. Its funny because I always have a lot of time on the computer, but this past week I picked the wrong time to have a social life. Also doesnt help that i'm leaving pretty soon to go back to school.

Ive never done one of these drafts, but to me its a learning experience and ill definitely do better next year. There are a lot of players I missed out on.