ATFL Western: (2) batmana vs. (7) O_6

[Texas Chuck]

. I'd really HATE it if the judges would give all the credit to our opponents for that and they win as a result of just that,

You might hate it, but it would be equally unfair of the judges to not look at what will obviously be the key matchup in the series and not give appropriate weight to the team we feel has a significant edge in it. You will just have to trust the judges to look at the team as a whole, but we all know having the more talented supporting cast often isnt as important as who wins between the stars.

The reality is that this version of Shaq destroyed the league. Ewing is obviously one of the best defenders you could have in this tournament, but surely no one thinks he is going to have marked impact on a guy who was simply unguardable during this stretch. We cant ignore it or minimize it. Its very real. Now that alone doesnt mean Shaq's team advances in every series, but it is an enormous advantage that must be overcome in order to beat him.

[Texas Chuck]

This series for me really comes down to Kevin Durant. We all know what a lethal scorer this guy is, but can he deliver at his usual elite level when facing a defense totally geared to containing him made up of this level of defenders with Shaq anchoring? Because team Shaq is going to score. I wondered about having more shooters around Shaq too, but lets not forget these Laker teams werent good 3-pt shooting teams but they were terrific offensive teams. So Im not worried that Westbrook and Hill arent elite range shooters.

I dont think however that batmana has one of the stronger defensive teams in this tournament. They are certainly one of the lessor teams on paper. While 0_6 has one of the best defensive teams in the bracket. That would be a big edge for them in a lot of series, but the main matchup is so tough. Can you double/triple Shaq and limit Roy and Westbrook and Hill? Even tho they arent elite shooters they are strong offensive players who can move the ball and take advantage of the gaps Shaq creates.

I do think Ewing can score on Shaq too tho. He has range on his jumper and I think he can score on him in the post especially since batmana isnt going to double--and correctly so imo. We know what a lethal scorer Durant can be, but Im concerned about the rest of the offense in this format. None of the other guys scare me at all. Im not nearly as high on Penny as everyone else and the other guys are totally dependent on someone else creating for them except maybe Joe Johnson and batmana would welcome Joe Johnson getting lots of shots.

A strong defense and Kevin Durant give you a chance against anyone, but I just dont think that team has quite enough offensively to match up. If they had another guy besides Ewing to match up with Shaq Id feel better going with them but as much as I respect the heck out of Sheed and Noah defensively they are physically no match and Ewing will almost certainly be in foul trouble at times in this matchup.

Vote Batmana (in 6 or maybe 7 games)

[O_6]

This series for me really comes down to Kevin Durant. We all know what a lethal scorer this guy is, but can he deliver at his usual elite level when facing a defense totally geared to containing him made up of this level of defenders with Shaq anchoring? Because team Shaq is going to score. I wondered about having more shooters around Shaq too, but lets not forget these Laker teams werent good 3-pt shooting teams but they were terrific offensive teams. So Im not worried that Westbrook and Hill arent elite range shooters.

I dont think however that batmana has one of the stronger defensive teams in this tournament. They are certainly one of the lessor teams on paper. While 0_6 has one of the best defensive teams in the bracket. That would be a big edge for them in a lot of series, but the main matchup is so tough. Can you double/triple Shaq and limit Roy and Westbrook and Hill? Even tho they arent elite shooters they are strong offensive players who can move the ball and take advantage of the gaps Shaq creates.

I do think Ewing can score on Shaq too tho. He has range on his jumper and I think he can score on him in the post especially since batmana isnt going to double--and correctly so imo. We know what a lethal scorer Durant can be, but Im concerned about the rest of the offense in this format. None of the other guys scare me at all. Im not nearly as high on Penny as everyone else and the other guys are totally dependent on someone else creating for them except maybe Joe Johnson and batmana would welcome Joe Johnson getting lots of shots.

A strong defense and Kevin Durant give you a chance against anyone, but I just dont think that team has quite enough offensively to match up. If they had another guy besides Ewing to match up with Shaq Id feel better going with them but as much as I respect the heck out of Sheed and Noah defensively they are physically no match and Ewing will almost certainly be in foul trouble at times in this matchup.

Vote Batmana (in 6 or maybe 7 games)

I respect that vote and I assumed you were going that way when you made your first comment on this thread.

But don't you think Ewing/Sheed/Noah + a lot of doubles makes for a better matchup against Shaq than Hill/George/Mason on single coverage against Durant? We've seen Durant eviscerate some of the top defensive wings in the league. In 5 career games against Paul George, KD has put up 32.4 PPG on a .547 FG% and .450 3P% (.651 TS%).

The best defensive option against Durant that batmana has is a guy that Durant has roasted head to head. Hill and Mason are both unique defenders, but I don't think either of them can do much to slow down Durant either. Hill was a good defender but he wasn't a shut down wing, and Mason on Durant is just asking for a lot of Durant FTs in today's league. Especially since batmana stated that his guys will defend one on one.

Both guys are such dominant scorers that they will get theirs no matter what, but I believe that Durant is going to have an easier time scoring than Shaq will (relatively speaking).

[Texas Chuck]

You dont have to tell me how great a scorer Durant is. I think he's incredible and he definitely falls into that category of guy who is going to get his almost no matter what--in a very small category in this tournament with Shaq, Mike, Lebron and..... There are some elite offensive players in this, and some elite scorers, but Durant hangs with any of them not named Jordan and surpasses virtually everyone else imo including guys like Chuck, Dream, Dirk, Bird etc...

And I agree no one is stopping him, not on batmana's roster and not in this tournament. Pippen isnt even stopping him and he would be my first choice. I just think Shaq is going to create far more havoc than Durant and thus the opportunities for the team will be easier. Durant would likely outscore Shaq in this series, but I think Shaq creates more good looks for himself and others because of just how much attention he requires at all times.

[Quotatious]

You might hate it, but it would be equally unfair of the judges to not look at what will obviously be the key matchup in the series and not give appropriate weight to the team we feel has a significant edge in it. You will just have to trust the judges to look at the team as a whole, but we all know having the more talented supporting cast often isnt as important as who wins between the stars.

The reality is that this version of Shaq destroyed the league. Ewing is obviously one of the best defenders you could have in this tournament, but surely no one thinks he is going to have marked impact on a guy who was simply unguardable during this stretch. We cant ignore it or minimize it. Its very real.

While obviously dominant and unstoppable, Shaq had certain weaknesses that can be utilized by a smart gameplan. First of all, as difficult as it was to deny him a deep inside position, if you were somehow able to do that, Shaq's options were really limited becase he completely lacked any kind of midrange jumper. He could either try a spin move to the basket or pass the ball out to the perimeter. If he was even slightly hesitant about what he wanted to do, he'd immediately find himself double teamed, and while he was an excellent passer to open shooters, it could also be prevented to a certain degree by double teaming him in a smart way, that is double teaming him with Sheed rather than a perimeter player, because this way you wouldn't leave any of the shooters wide open. It's also a decent chance to prevent them from scoring if you double team Shaq with the guy who guards Grant Hill, because Hill didn't have the 3 point range during the '96-'98 stretch, and he'd probably try to drive instead of launching it from beyond the arc, which gives you the time to regroup your defense. I wouldn't really be worried about Charles Oakley on the offensive end, because even though he could knock down a midrange jumper, he was still a mediocre offensive threat, and he's more or less a non-factor in a league against the oppostion of this caliber, especially if you consider how smart and athletic prime Ewing and Sheed were on the defensive end (both could also block shots pretty well, so good luck attacking the lane against them).

I agree with you that Shaq's impact would be huge, but you have to admit that he didn't go against any players of peak/prime Ewing during his 2000-02 peak, except a young Tim Duncan. That being said, he still struggled mightily against him in the 2002 semifinals (didn't even shoot 45% from the field)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-SAS

I agree with O_6 that having guys like peak Ewing or Zo gives us a chance to beat the teams led by Shaq or Hakeem, because even though they still have the edge at center, it's still possible to defeat them if you assemble a superior supporting cast around Ewing/Zo than they have around Shaq/Hakeem, which I think O_6 actually WAS able to do. You know Chuck, we have to assume that there's a chance to win even if you don't have one of these top tier superstars (MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, LeBron, Magic or Duncan, in particular, but mainly the first four guys on this list), because otherwise it doesn't really make sense to continue doing this exercise. I'm sure you know what I mean...

[bastillon]

O_6 has this in a sweep.

batmana has built a team with tons of talent that fits together very poorly. when you have a guy like Shaq, what you need to do, is to surround him with good decision makers offensively that will make the entry pass and space the floor with shooters. you also need a guy who could score from the perimeter when the defense takes Shaq out of the game by constantly double teaming him. contrary to what people think, it has happened during Shaq's career tons of times, see: G2 of '95 finals, G6 & G7 of '00 WCF for the most glaring examples of this. Bulls did this as well when they had to. it doesn't mean you will hold Shaq under 25 ppg but there are stretches when Shaq would go scoreless for like 10-15 minutes. this is when you need a guy like Penny/Kobe/Wade to keep your team in the game. this is the problem when you have a guy so reliant on scoring in the paint. Westbrook coud be that guy, as well as Roy.

but the problem with this roster is not the lack of options once Shaq goes scoreless (though you always need to take this into account when building around Shaq), it's the decision making and spacing aspect of the game that I mentioned earlier. you can't build a dominant offense around a low post specialist without feeding him the ball and punishing double teams. this team cannot do that. Westbrook is a horrendous fit in particular in this regard because his shot chucking and decision making has been known as poor and was often mentioned that he keeps Durant from truly flourishing. that was correct only in part because Westbrook was clearly valuable to OKC's offense but when I look at Shaq-led team I want no part of Westbrook on the floor. he will make sure Shaq doesn't get enough touches. Westbrook's PG skills in terms of leading a structured offense (critical with dominant low post players) are very poor. he doesn't know when to score and when to pass. he is ALWAYS aggressive. while for some teams this aggressiveness is what you need. for Shaq-led team, it's not. you need a guy who controls the pace, makes sure Shaq sets up down low, gets a touch and dominates. I don't think Shaq would get enough touches on this roster with Westbrook as its PG.

shooting around Shaq is also quite erratic. Grant Hill is a non-threat from behind the arc and he's not even much of a threat from a long two. Westbrook is a mediocre shooter obviously, especially spotting up. those two guys in the lineup make it very hard for Shaq to function offensively. but not only them - Mason Oakley and those guys are not deadly shooters in any way shape or form. yeah they can hit a J from time to time but it's not something that would stop opposing frontlines to just gang up on Shaq on every possession. you can basically put Shaq out of the game with constant triple teaming and there is nobody that would punish him for doing it. spacing is the reason why I would put Roy and George in for larger stretches but it was your call to play them limited mins. I consider this a huge coaching mistake and even though you have the potential on the roster to make spacing around Shaq better, you chose wrong guys to play larger mins.

the last thing I wanna bring up is Shaq's defense. this is not brought up very often but Shaq's team were most of the time very poor playoff defenses. Im talking about like over 10 postseasons with poor playoff defenses. I could care less about what they did in the RS when opp teams didn't gameplan for their defense like you do in the postseason, when you can expose opponents weaknesses much better. in the playoffs Shaq's team only once had a defense that could be considered clearly better than average (2001 - they were elite by the numbers though they didn't have tough matchups defensively) and most of the time they were really bad, far below league average. that is the reason why I would see guys with mobility and athleticism on the perimeter to cover Shaq's weaknesses in that regard. defensively, you want guys who can rotate very quickly and have the speed and versatility to make up for Shaq's poor lateral quickness. you did a poor job with that imo. guys like Oakley and Mason bring a lot physicality but you already have that on the roster and it makes little sense to further sacrifice defensive speed for more (redundant) physicality.

I think Shaq needs an elite perimeter playmaker/shot maker, spacing, low usage/high efficiency floor spacers with good decision making and guys who could cover Shaq's defensive weaknesses. I don't think the build around Shaq is what you want. Paul George, Roy and Conley are to me a much better fit around Shaq than your s5 is. instead of Oakley, you should've taken a guy like Horace Grant who was extremely succesful with Shaq and perfectly complimented him on both ends. Oakley is not that good of a fit.

O_6 has a much more balanced offense. far better decision making, spacing, defensively there's much more quickness on the perimeter particularly in terms of pick and roll defense with Ewing and Sheed both being very mobile big men.

[Texas Chuck]

You know Chuck, we have to assume that there's a chance to win even if you don't have one of these top tier superstars (MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, LeBron, Magic or Duncan, in particular, but mainly the first four guys on this list), because otherwise it doesn't really make sense to continue doing this exercise. I'm sure you know what I mean...

I know exactly what you mean. You do understand tho that in not having one of those guys that you have to overcome that when facing them. I dont think O-6 quite did that in this match up nor did I think Hibachi was able to do in vs Mike. I think Hibachi potentially had the team to do it, but I questioned some of his major strategic decisions. I think Shaq is the dominant player in the series and I like his supporting cast more than Durant's and I think it fits together just fine.

I understand not everyone got a top pick, but there are several teams in this thing that dont have one of those guys that I can see winning the whole thing. You seem to doubt my ability to judge this fairly and think I have too strong of a bias towards the best player in the series. Thats fine and if others agree I will step down as a judge because I don't want people to feel like one of the judges was unqualified. You will note however that I thought Lebron was by far the best player in his series, but took the other team. So I do look at the entire team, how I think they work together, and how they match up against the other squad.

But if you and others feel like I am not the right type of poster to judge this, I will willingly abdicate with no hard feelings. I know how much work everyone has put into this project and I dont want to be a hindrance.

[batmana]

I was waiting for O_6 to give his depth chart since I wasn’t sure how he would use the 2 Johnsons. Instead, he has opted to start Battier at the 2 so I will change my defensive assignments a little bit. Like I said, I plan to play Brandon Roy whenever Shaq is out so that he becomes the go-to guy for my second unit. I will take out Roy early (maybe 4-5 minutes in the game) and bring Paul George. Then Grant Hill will switch on Penny and play full-court defense on him. Remember that this is a very young and athletic Grant Hill so that I am confident he can take this load. The goal will be to tire Penny, possibly force some turnovers as O_6 will probably need to insert a secondary ball-handler; to shorten the short-clock and force a hasty shot.

George, of course, will guard Durant. Thus, I will put Westbrook on Battier which doesn’t bother me. The same defensive assignments would work whenever DJ is in and will only be changed when Joe Johnson is playing. I don’t want Joe Johnson posting up Westbrook since he has a size advantage on top of being a lethal scorer. I am aware that DJ also loved to post but I am willing to let Westbrook handle him 1-on-1. In the second unit, Brandon Roy will play with Conley and Paul George whenever Shaq is out. Those 3 are excellent in playing the passing lanes and should create fast-break opportunities. Toni Kukoc will either play when Durant is not on the floor (as he is the one guy I don’t want Kukoc defending), or whenever Shaq returns to the floor so that I can bring Paul George back to guard Durant. But I will make sure that whoever Joe Johnson is guarding is going to run around multiple screens and look for spots on the floor to get the ball and attack, just to see how committed Joe Johnson would be on that end.

I already said that I will use Grant Hill off-ball offensively. I believe he is capable of being effective off the ball as he can make smart cuts to the rim and use his athleticism to finish. He can also receive a pass from the post and create in late-shot-clock situations. He may not be a 3-point threat but he was a very good mid-range shooter and possessed the skills to get to those areas where he can make this shot. Similarly, I think Brandon Roy can play effectively off the ball whenever he is in the game with the first unit. I am confident he will make the shot if he is left wide open.

As for Westbrook, I am not worried about him “chucking”. He has the ability to take over a game with his scoring which is a huge skill in this league, how many players are good enough to score against almost any defense? He will also involve his teammates. Keep in mind that during the period 2000-2002 (which I have for Shaq), Shaq had a teammate who took more shots (20.0 FGA for Kobe to 18.2 for Westbrook) and averaged less assists (5.1 to 7.1) than the 2011-2013 version of Westbrook. Shaq still averaged 28.6 PPG over this 3-year span so I am not worried that Westbrook will not give him his shots. Shaq did this on 19.6 FGA, and Westbrook played with Durant who over the same 3-year span averaged 19.0 FGA.

I agree that my team is not a 3-point shooting team in its makeup. It is not supposed to rely heavily on 3s. However, I believe I have players who will provide 3-point threat in the lineups and will knock down their fair share of 3s over the course of the game. But I also have many players who can be decision-makers with the ball in their hands.

Offensively when the defense collapses around Shaq and he passes out, the perimeter players will make the decision whether to shoot or cut. The better shooters (Roy, George, Kukoc, Conley) will take their share of 3s, but they also had the ability to take their guys off the dribble. Hill and Westbrook will more likely cut and use their skills to get themselves (or a teammate) a good shot, or a trip to the line (which seems to be somewhat overlooked).

Again, I don’t plan to shut out Durant, that might be impossible. I plan to contest every shot taken by anybody at any point of the floor, and go hard for the rebound. The most important aspect will be keep the opponent to one shot per possession, and contest every shot. Same with Ewing, if I don’t trust Shaq to play him 1-on-1, I might just give up this matchup. If Ewing wants to shoot jumpers all night long, so be it, that’s not his main strength. I am still confident Shaq will body him up on the other end to get his points.

[O_6]

You know Chuck, we have to assume that there's a chance to win even if you don't have one of these top tier superstars (MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, LeBron, Magic or Duncan, in particular, but mainly the first four guys on this list), because otherwise it doesn't really make sense to continue doing this exercise. I'm sure you know what I mean...

I know exactly what you mean. You do understand tho that in not having one of those guys that you have to overcome that when facing them. I dont think O-6 quite did that in this match up nor did I think Hibachi was able to do in vs Mike. I think Hibachi potentially had the team to do it, but I questioned some of his major strategic decisions. I think Shaq is the dominant player in the series and I like his supporting cast more than Durant's and I think it fits together just fine.

I understand not everyone got a top pick, but there are several teams in this thing that dont have one of those guys that I can see winning the whole thing. You seem to doubt my ability to judge this fairly and think I have too strong of a bias towards the best player in the series. Thats fine and if others agree I will step down as a judge because I don't want people to feel like one of the judges was unqualified. You will note however that I thought Lebron was by far the best player in his series, but took the other team. So I do look at the entire team, how I think they work together, and how they match up against the other squad.

But if you and others feel like I am not the right type of poster to judge this, I will willingly abdicate with no hard feelings. I know how much work everyone has put into this project and I dont want to be a hindrance.

You shouldn't step down, your analysis has been interesting to read even if I don't agree with some of it. Every judge here is going to have somewhat of a bias when it comes to certain players and teams. Some judges may have championed a certain player and may be biased towards the team that has that player. Some judges might prefer a team that plays at a slower tempo. Some judges might value offense over defense or vice versa.

Every judge has their biases, that's why we have 8 of them. 8 judges who have their own view of the game with their own unique biases is what makes this tournament fair.

And to be honest, your perceived bias of "favoring the best player" is a perfectly defensible bias considering how the team with the best player often wins a playoff series. But I think in this format it's a lot tougher for 1 star to carry a team, so the best player in the series matters slightly less while team cohesion matters a little more than in a normal league. Plus you voted against "Team LeBron" so it's not like you are just looking at only the best player.

But I really hope you stay on this project because you are a good poster whose opinion is valued.

[Quotatious]

I know exactly what you mean. You do understand tho that in not having one of those guys that you have to overcome that when facing them. I dont think O-6 quite did that in this match up nor did I think Hibachi was able to do in vs Mike. I think Hibachi potentially had the team to do it, but I questioned some of his major strategic decisions. I think Shaq is the dominant player in the series and I like his supporting cast more than Durant's and I think it fits together just fine.

I understand not everyone got a top pick, but there are several teams in this thing that dont have one of those guys that I can see winning the whole thing. You seem to doubt my ability to judge this fairly and think I have too strong of a bias towards the best player in the series. Thats fine and if others agree I will step down as a judge because I don't want people to feel like one of the judges was unqualified. You will note however that I thought Lebron was by far the best player in his series, but took the other team. So I do look at the entire team, how I think they work together, and how they match up against the other squad.

But if you and others feel like I am not the right type of poster to judge this, I will willingly abdicate with no hard feelings. I know how much work everyone has put into this project and I dont want to be a hindrance.

No, no, I absolutely don't think that you should step down as a judge. It was actually me who said that you're a good candidate to be a judge. You're one of the last people whom I'd call 'unqualified'. I just feel like you've unnecessarily taken my remarks personally. I really don't see a reason to get emotionally involved into this discussion. It's just a matter of difference of opinion here, and that's exactly the purpose of message boards like this. Maybe I just expressed myself too harshly here, I don't know...If so, I sincerely apologize.

I'd even say that it's actually a good thing that there's such difference of opinions here, because otherwise the majority would sway the rest towards their point of view and all matchups would end up being a sweep...(I know that's an obvious exaggeration, but I'm simply trying to be convincing with what I said in the previous sentence.

Loosen up a bit man, and have a nice day.

[therealbig3]

The one thing I want to point out though is that Shaq's liability in the PnR isn't going to be much of a problem here, or at least, it won't be any bigger of a problem than Roy Hibbert's weakness for the Pacers. And they have a DOMINANT defense, like GOAT-caliber defense right now.

When you can surround your slower big man with athletic perimeter defenders that deny penetration and can get around screens and cover for him in a big way, it really allows him to do what he does best: intimidate attackers and protect the rim. And there's really no one better at that than Shaq.

However, I do agree that O_6 is going to have an advantage here. Shaq HAS been limited before, even peak Shaq. And it was done by teams with big, physical front lines that could rotate a multitude of defenders at him (like IDK, Ewing/Sheed). Then you add Durant AND Penny? BTW, I think those are the two best wings in this comparison anyway, by far. I'd definitely take them over George and Hill.

And then with the rest of the team, just a great combination of shooting and defense. Battier, McDyess, Noah, Brandon, DJ, and Johnson. Noah wouldn't stand a chance against Shaq, so you might need to keep one of Sheed or Ewing out there on the court at all times, but maybe McDyess might have success, in the same way Malik Rose was able to hold his own against Shaq, with a lower center of gravity.

I kind of agree with the general consensus here: the spacing around Shaq should be better. Hill: not a great shooter. Westbrook: not a great shooter. George: very good shooter. Roy: OK shooter, not that great. And the fit isn't that good here. Hill, Westbrook, and Roy are all players that need the ball in their hands in order to have optimal impact. You'll get diminishing returns from them imo. George is a guy that could play really well off-ball though.

So although batmana has by far the best player (Shaq), O_6 has a more balanced team all-around, that fits better. He's designed exactly the kind of team that Shaq-led teams had problems with, except with even more offensive firepower.

Vote: O_6 wins this

[MisterHibachi]

I understand not everyone got a top pick, but there are several teams in this thing that dont have one of those guys that I can see winning the whole thing. You seem to doubt my ability to judge this fairly and think I have too strong of a bias towards the best player in the series. Thats fine and if others agree I will step down as a judge because I don't want people to feel like one of the judges was unqualified. You will note however that I thought Lebron was by far the best player in his series, but took the other team. So I do look at the entire team, how I think they work together, and how they match up against the other squad.

But if you and others feel like I am not the right type of poster to judge this, I will willingly abdicate with no hard feelings. I know how much work everyone has put into this project and I dont want to be a hindrance.

No, definitely not. You are a good poster and everyone has biases, you can't remove those. I think you, and the other judges, have done as good a job as one can at setting aside your bias. Voting for the best player isn't a sign of bias, its just a sign that you think that the role players don't offset the better player on the opposite team and that's completely understandable. That's judging, nothing more.

[MisterHibachi]

bastillon: O_6
TMACFORMVP
penbeast0
ronnymac2
Doctor MJ
SideshowBob
Texas Chuck: batmana
therealbig3: O_6

[Doctor MJ]

Huge Durant homer here. There's no such thing as guarding Durant. You can get inside his head and get him frustrated, and then make his performance anemic, or you deny him the ball with tons of trap defenses and phisicallity off the ball. I just don't see the hard nosed defenders in batmana's teams to do that kind of dirty play. The players I saw taking the best out of Durant were Ron Artest for the Lakers in 2010's first round, Tony Allen for Memphis Grizzlies and Jason Kidd in the 11 WCF, because they did exactly that. Trapped him, got inside his heade, frustrated him, and then his own mind guarded him: he became anemic. George Hill and Paul George imo doesn't have what it takes to defend Durant. Two classy players can't take on Durant, imo. You have to be mean. No, you have to be a team and trap him.

See, something on my mind is that we're supposed to go by 3-year peak, and Durant was a very different player less than 2 years ago.

When we did the Peak 50 project after the '12 season, Durant ranked 32nd and would have only been the #3 guy on his own team. The player you describe here is just not what we've believed for 3 full years. So then the question becomes: Did we not believe because we were wrong, or did we not believe because the then 23-year-old was not the player he is now?

I kinda hate the idea that the matchup would swing based on people interpreting the guidelines differently, but it very well might for me. I don't see Durant as he stands for this project as an offensive force in anywhere near the ballpark as Shaq, and at first glance that's the difference maker for me.

[therealbig3]

But Durant even 2 years ago was still a devastating scorer, shooter, and off-ball player. Even if he wasn't able to maintain the kind of efficiency he's doing now, and even if he was capable of being stopped by certain defenses...he wouldn't be asked to do anything he wasn't already elite at, because he's playing next to Penny and Ewing. His game fits PERFECTLY, even if we're talking about 2012 Durant.

[Doctor MJ]

But Durant even 2 years ago was still a devastating scorer, shooter, and off-ball player. Even if he wasn't able to maintain the kind of efficiency he's doing now, and even if he was capable of being stopped by certain defenses...he wouldn't be asked to do anything he wasn't already elite at, because he's playing next to Penny and Ewing. His game fits PERFECTLY, even if we're talking about 2012 Durant.

I don't disagree that Penny & Ewing & Durant is a nice combo. I mean, the team is great - but all the teams are great.

What I'm really focusing on is that I think Durant's impact hasn't just improved a little in the past 3 years, it has exploded. Before that we talked about the limitations of Durant's off-ball role. Will the gravity of Penny & Ewing give Durant more space than he'd get on any NBA team? Sure, but we also know how things work on superteams. You can't instantly beam the ball to whoever the open star is. What we're likely to see from Durant then is an off ball player going for low 20s in volume. He'll do it with great efficiency, but heck so could Reggie Miller in such a situation.

Maybe that's hyperbole to a degree, and yes Durant could always do more non-scoring things than Miller, but the talk I'm hearing about Durant here to me sounds like we're talking about a GOAT scoring threat because that's what we see of Durant right at the moment, and I think the difference between those two extremes is something that people should think about very carefully.

[Doctor MJ]

Now, while I'm at it though, I'll point out that I don't really get Westbrook here either (guess I'm a closet OKC hater). To me as Westbrook has existed as an NBA star, it's been based on being ball dominant in a way you just wouldn't use him as while playing with Shaq, let alone with Roy and Hill. I'd really prefer a 1 here known for being more off ball and for being a great shot.

[O_6]

Huge Durant homer here. There's no such thing as guarding Durant. You can get inside his head and get him frustrated, and then make his performance anemic, or you deny him the ball with tons of trap defenses and phisicallity off the ball. I just don't see the hard nosed defenders in batmana's teams to do that kind of dirty play. The players I saw taking the best out of Durant were Ron Artest for the Lakers in 2010's first round, Tony Allen for Memphis Grizzlies and Jason Kidd in the 11 WCF, because they did exactly that. Trapped him, got inside his heade, frustrated him, and then his own mind guarded him: he became anemic. George Hill and Paul George imo doesn't have what it takes to defend Durant. Two classy players can't take on Durant, imo. You have to be mean. No, you have to be a team and trap him.

See, something on my mind is that we're supposed to go by 3-year peak, and Durant was a very different player less than 2 years ago.

When we did the Peak 50 project after the '12 season, Durant ranked 32nd and would have only been the #3 guy on his own team. The player you describe here is just not what we've believed for 3 full years. So then the question becomes: Did we not believe because we were wrong, or did we not believe because the then 23-year-old was not the player he is now?

I kinda hate the idea that the matchup would swing based on people interpreting the guidelines differently, but it very well might for me. I don't see Durant as he stands for this project as an offensive force in anywhere near the ballpark as Shaq, and at first glance that's the difference maker for me.

I think you underrate Durant's improvement these past 2 years. Some advanced stats...

2012: .610 TS% -- 26.2 PER -- .230 WS/48 -- 114 ORtg -- (WS/48 is 110th best since '80)
2013: .647 TS% -- 28.3 PER -- .291 WS/48 -- 122 ORtg -- (WS/48 is 12th best since '80)
2014: .645 TS% -- 31.1 PER -- .329 WS/48 -- 125 ORtg -- (WS/48 is THE best since '80... THE!)

And his improvements go beyond the numbers. In 2012 there were certain holes and questions about his game. He wasn't a very good passer or defender. There were also questions about how much he relied on Westbrook's penetration.

He has answered those questions in a major way these past 2 years. He is a far better passer and decision maker now than he was in 2012 and he has also developed into a plus defensive player. And on top of improving these other aspects of his game, he has improved his scoring and proven that he doesn't need Westbrook to be a dominant offensive player.

You say his 2012 ranked as the #32 peak in the Peaks Project done after the 2012 season. But among post-80 peaks, he would rank #23 on that list. You can push it to #24 if you acknowledge early 80s Kareem having superior seasons (his '77 season was used in the project).

So what is easily his weakest season from this 3 year span would rank as the #24 highest peak post-80? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? His 2013 season would've probably been in the 15-20 range and his current 2014 season is on par with almost any season post-80 as of now. How many players have had a better 3 year run than 2012-14 Durant post-80? I drafted him 14th and I think he was totally worthy of that pick.

Durant in this project should not be treated as 2014 Durant, because quite frankly 2014 Durant is having a GOAT caliber season right now. But he should also not be treated as 2012 Durant either. I agree that Shaq was probably the more valuable offensive player over the years of this project, but I think it's crazy to suggest that Durant isn't even in the same ballpark.

[Doctor MJ]

Huge Durant homer here. There's no such thing as guarding Durant. You can get inside his head and get him frustrated, and then make his performance anemic, or you deny him the ball with tons of trap defenses and phisicallity off the ball. I just don't see the hard nosed defenders in batmana's teams to do that kind of dirty play. The players I saw taking the best out of Durant were Ron Artest for the Lakers in 2010's first round, Tony Allen for Memphis Grizzlies and Jason Kidd in the 11 WCF, because they did exactly that. Trapped him, got inside his heade, frustrated him, and then his own mind guarded him: he became anemic. George Hill and Paul George imo doesn't have what it takes to defend Durant. Two classy players can't take on Durant, imo. You have to be mean. No, you have to be a team and trap him.

See, something on my mind is that we're supposed to go by 3-year peak, and Durant was a very different player less than 2 years ago.

When we did the Peak 50 project after the '12 season, Durant ranked 32nd and would have only been the #3 guy on his own team. The player you describe here is just not what we've believed for 3 full years. So then the question becomes: Did we not believe because we were wrong, or did we not believe because the then 23-year-old was not the player he is now?

I kinda hate the idea that the matchup would swing based on people interpreting the guidelines differently, but it very well might for me. I don't see Durant as he stands for this project as an offensive force in anywhere near the ballpark as Shaq, and at first glance that's the difference maker for me.

I think you underrate Durant's improvement these past 2 years. Some advanced stats...

2012: .610 TS% -- 26.2 PER -- .230 WS/48 -- 114 ORtg -- (WS/48 is 110th best since '80)
2013: .647 TS% -- 28.3 PER -- .291 WS/48 -- 122 ORtg -- (WS/48 is 12th best since '80)
2014: .645 TS% -- 31.1 PER -- .329 WS/48 -- 125 ORtg -- (WS/48 is THE best since '80... THE!)

And his improvements go beyond the numbers. In 2012 there were certain holes and questions about his game. He wasn't a very good passer or defender. There were also questions about how much he relied on Westbrook's penetration.

He has answered those questions in a major way these past 2 years. He is a far better passer and decision maker now than he was in 2012 and he has also developed into a plus defensive player. And on top of improving these other aspects of his game, he has improved his scoring and proven that he doesn't need Westbrook to be a dominant offensive player.

Thus far I'm just confused as to how you think you're disagreeing with me. My entire point was that Durant's improvement has been so drastic that I think people are likely to use the "wrong" Durant when analyzing him in this project.

You say his 2012 ranked as the #32 peak in the Peaks Project done after the 2012 season. But among post-80 peaks, he would rank #23 on that list. You can push it to #24 if you acknowledge early 80s Kareem having superior seasons (his '77 season was used in the project).

So what is easily his weakest season from this 3 year span would rank as the #24 highest peak post-80? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? His 2013 season would've probably been in the 15-20 range and his current 2014 season is on par with almost any season post-80 as of now. How many players have had a better 3 year run than 2012-14 Durant post-80? I drafted him 14th and I think he was totally worthy of that pick.

Durant in this project should not be treated as 2014 Durant, because quite frankly 2014 Durant is having a GOAT caliber season right now. But he should also not be treated as 2012 Durant either. I agree that Shaq was probably the more valuable offensive player over the years of this project, but I think it's crazy to suggest that Durant isn't even in the same ballpark.

I think your words should be considered by everyone, and they'll just have to make up their own minds.

To me Shaq is a candidate for offensive GOAT. Durant only entered that ballpark 1.5 years ago, so by definition 3 years of Durant isn't in that ballpark.

[ElGee]

I'll try not to be too redundant -- this is certainly a matchup worthy of the discussion it has received. Now is a good time to point out that for these kinds of games under these rules, I do try and envision how a team's season would play out, and what their identity would be. However, coaches comments and strategies dictate that -- if I see a coach say something I think will be a major problem for chemistry/attitude, I'm factoring that in to the entire team identity.

batmana on offense
Shaq without shooters is not ideal. Orlando had shooters galore. Early Lakers had plenty of shooters, even if the percentages weren't elite (Van Exel was a good shooter but prone to taking bad shots, for example). Then the 3-peat Lakers -- Glen Rice, fisher, Horry at first...they didn't shoot well in 2000, but PJ and that team were all about balance and spacing.

Batmana has said he will run "some triangle sets" -- I'm not entirely clear on how much "some" is, or whether Westbrook will cooperate with that, but the 96-98 Bulls had really poor shooting and did pretty OK with a triple-post offense. They had great rebounding, though, and often brought in Kukoc as a stretch big and of course had Kerr and frankly with the shorter line, even Pip could damage if they didn't handle the post player well.

The point is, I think batmana's team is hurt by having essentially no shooters on the court. At the same time, the offense will still be good, and I like the RW-Shaq combination given how well RW breaks down defenses and his midrange game...it's not far off from other prototypes Shaq has played with. I will add that I'm baffled as to what Anthony Mason is going to do -- he was a point forward in Charlotte and he's playing alongside guys that are ball-dominant. The fit issues discussed in this thread are very real here. Specific to this matchup, I like the defenders that can be thrown at Shaq.

I'm not overly impressed by what Batmana has here -- I don't think this would be an historically good offense against the rest of the (typical) league. I'm thinking 108-110 range here with Shaq on the floor.

O_6 on offense
Right away I get confused when the coach says "Penny is my #3 option but primary ball-handler." I assume he means FGA, but it's a strange thing to say: "Magic will be my #4 option in this offense." He does go on to describe Penny running the offense a good deal. I do think Penny and [2012-2014 "average"] Durant are pretty nasty offensively. Rasheed will be prone to taking too many 3's though -- he's not a player who has his % spike with open shots. 35% is pretty much 1.05 pts/pos on those wide open shots, and Batmana should take that all day.

Despite great offense/fit/BBIQ from Durant/Penny/Battier, I don't like Ewing have so many looks. I'd take Penny in the post over Ewing all day -- Ewing is not a good passer and is not in the McHale post mold of "people who can kill you in the post without passing." Nonetheless, I don't really think batmana's team has the defense equipped to keep O_6 in that 108-110 range...

Hard call. I'd vote O_6 if I had too.