E-Balla wrote:Oh don't worry there's nothing negative about any of this. We're arguing 2 ATG bigs here so either was a great pick.
I'd say Zo's teams were built around him just like Pat's. He was lower volume than Ewing but young Ewing was part of some more balanced offensive teams and he was better for it. Remember this is your dream team and if you can argue increased effectiveness in a reduced role it's all you. Personally I would've argued Ewing could reduce his volume and do everything Zo did offensively but better.
Perhaps, but it's not like Ewing in his later years had surprising offensive impact as his primacy decreased like you'd expect from someone who was really, really smart.
In general, Zo played a role that to me is just plain smarter for someone his size than Ewing for most of Ewing's career, and while that had everything to do with what coaches told the players to do, and I"m basically okay with saying Ewing would be Zo's equal on this front, I wouldn't feel comfortable giving Ewing an actual edge playing in a way he didn't actually play.
E-Balla wrote:Yeah I'm not going to lie I think your team is a little too small. But that's why we get to argue and rebute. Actually size is goign to be a major thing here and that's why I'm happy I got McHale who was a legit PF that could guard SFs all game and anchor any small ball sets I have. Still I personally would've taken a post defender. With guys like Shaq, Kareem, and Wilt out here in the tournament having a post defender is crucial.
Well I do have strong guys on the interior, but I would certainly agree that outside of Zo I don't have anyone who says "big man stopper". I think though when you actually get specific, the reasoning makes sense:
Shaq? If Mutombo couldn't stop Shaq, clearly the only way to contain him is by smart, proactive defense as a team...which was a lot harder to actually do legally back then. Lucky for the rest of us, we're playing with modern rules and strategies.
Kareem? To really do his thing he needs space & time, which he wouldn't get in modern basketball. This isn't to say he wouldn't be a great player today, but finesse on the interior really works best if you can rely on clear single or double teams. A constant noise of fast-moving defense won't let you get into a rhythm.
Wilt? His volume scoring never actually worked. He'll be a fantastic force in terms of fastbreaks, putbacks, etc, but take all the issues from before and amplify them unless you can convince the judges that this version of Wilt spent years finely honing his rapid decision making prowess near the hoop in a way he never did when he actually played.
E-Balla wrote:I'd say a young Ewing (even with the knee problems) is at least as mobile as Zo. I remember me and trex had a conversation about 90 Ewing vs AD and in the middle of it he went back to watch some late 80s/early 90s and the first thing he said about it was that Ewing was very mobile and more mobile than he remembered. Personally out of the big 3 90s bigs I think he was the most mobile of the bunch defensively (Robinson was faster but Ewing was probably quicker IMO). Zo's great and he takes up less FGAs so it's a tough choice.
Okay, let's compare '90 Ewing with '99 Mourning.
Ewing
Block %: 5.9
OReb%: 8.5
Mourning
Block %: 7.7
OReb%: 12.3
What about in college? We don't have as much data, but working with what we got per 40 minutes:
Ewing
Block 4.8
Reb: 12.0
Mourning
Block 6.1
Reb: 13.1
There's more to this stuff than a couple data points of course, but the data doesn't back up the idea that Ewing had extreme motor that we've forgotten about because of what we saw in old age. It was better when he was younger of course, but it's still not up there with the most impressive bigs on that front.
E-Balla wrote:Here's where I'll also add: I have 1 modern player (Millsap) and 1 player in Zo who arguably won't be as good as in his own era, every other player I chose, I chose specifically because I think they were better suited to this era than his own.
4) To elaborate more on offense: My attack, like basically every excellent modern attack, is perimeter-oriented. Zo will certainly score as a finisher on fast breaks, as a guy getting rebounds, and as a result of cracks in the defense which allow attacking passes to the interior (pick & roll, etc). He's a scary threat to any defense that doesn't take him seriously, but he's not Bird and he's not West. He won't be my lead offensive player.
Booo. Too narrow minded Doc. I'm going full Princeton implementation. Let's get all of my players a lot of touches and use their passing to my advantage.
Ah, that goes toward my point as well. You don't use the Princeton to let your big man volume score. Rapid passes are designed for rapid attacks. The tend to improve shooting balance in general, but where they allow volume it tends to rely on perimeter players either to shoot from the perimeter or make outstanding passes from the perimeter.
Note that those possibilities DO allow for a hub & spoke model that Hakeem pioneered, but defenses do have more options today to confront that which means he can't do his Dream Shake stuff the same way today.
Also, note that that was true even before we factor in that 3's are worth more than 2's and that teams now realize that and prioritize the 3's more than they used to.
As I say all this, I'll also say that you could think of the offense I'm running in Princeton terms too. I'm not really big on using official labels for the same reason that it's painful to watch Kurt Rambis try to fit a triangle into a round hole, but I've chosen a team with phenomenal passing and decision making because with such a team the offense tends not to be based around a carefully crafted set of complicated plays and focuses more on just letting the players read the floor and make the right play.
On that note, the problem with the triangle in general is that it's typically quite hard to find enough smart players to make it work. On an NBA level team it's absolutely wonderful to have Steve Nash out there, because he can think for everyone else. He's still great in this league of course, but the smarter your players in general, the less you have to spell out exactly what they are supposed to do.
It's a pretty good pick, though. Versatile player with high basketball IQ, one of the best perimeter defenders of all-time, tenacious competitor. Same with Buse (I had Buse on my radar, I didn't expect anybody else to take him, to be honest).
