2016 Scavenger Hunt Draft - ESAL/Gatz wins

[LamarMatic7]

Totally didn't realize Kukoc counted for White Stiff. Dammit.

To make you feel better. Kukoc wasn't that good that year, he regressed a lot and was 31% from 3p line. He wasn't a deadly shooter anymore. I didn't pick him because of that

Well, 3-point percentages fluctuate. That's simply what happens. If some guy has an awesome few months, it is very likely that he will regress to the mean either that season or the next year. So I don't think that him shooting 31% from the three this particular season indicates that "he wasn't a deadly shooter anymore". I mean, he shot .446 the year before and .361 the next season.

[Diop]

Totally didn't realize Kukoc counted for White Stiff. Dammit.

To make you feel better. Kukoc wasn't that good that year, he regressed a lot and was 31% from 3p line. He wasn't a deadly shooter anymore. I didn't pick him because of that

Well, 3-point percentages fluctuate. That's simply what happens. If some guy has an awesome few months, it is very likely that he will regress to the mean either that season or the next year. So I don't think that him shooting 31% from the three this particular season indicates that "he wasn't a deadly shooter anymore". I mean, he shot .446 the year before and .361 the next season.

I understand what you're saying Lamar, but I can't say I thought much of Kukoc after his Bulls years. He was pretty average and I would honestly pick Charlotte McBob over Atlanta Kukoc. Tougher, better defender and shot more 3's at a better rate that year.

[Diop]

Diop selects a player who has been on the edge of getting picked by me for a while, but I eventually opted for Bogut...

Vlade Divac, white stiff, 2002-03

I was tossing up between the 2 but you made that choice for me, thanks for that

[LamarMatic7]

To make you feel better. Kukoc wasn't that good that year, he regressed a lot and was 31% from 3p line. He wasn't a deadly shooter anymore. I didn't pick him because of that

Well, 3-point percentages fluctuate. That's simply what happens. If some guy has an awesome few months, it is very likely that he will regress to the mean either that season or the next year. So I don't think that him shooting 31% from the three this particular season indicates that "he wasn't a deadly shooter anymore". I mean, he shot .446 the year before and .361 the next season.

I understand what you're saying Lamar, but I can't say I thought much of Kukoc after his Bulls years. He was pretty average and I would honestly pick Charlotte McBob over Atlanta Kukoc. Tougher, better defender and shot more 3's at a better rate that year.

oh, I'm simply talking about his stroke from 3. I have no illusions about how good he was as a player. Just a decent bench guy.

[Diop]

I'm sure he could still probably stroke it today, a natural scorer/shooter like a young Sachmo.

I considered McBob, but I wanted a centre

[LamarMatic7]

I'm sure he could still probably stroke it today, a natural scorer/shooter like a young Sachmo.

I considered McBob, but I wanted a centre

What scared my away from McBob (and would scare me as a GM today in the league) is how he absolutely has fallen off a cliff. I understand that the injury he had and his place in the rotation (when Spo gives him a shot, he looks somewhat decent) have something to do with it. But, man... He hasn't come close to replicating that 13-14 season. Might be a perfect "right coach, right place" year for him. In general, I like McBob but I wouldn't completely disagree with a person who says that it was a random good year he had.

[Diop]

I get that, but since we are using the season to judge the player, I think it would be fair to grade him on that season alone. Where going for the 1 championship, not building a dynasty.

Otherwise whoever selected injured Walton is in a bit of trouble

[BatumtheGlue]

I get that, but since we are using the season to judge the player, I think it would be fair to grade him on that season alone. Where going for the 1 championship, not building a dynasty.

Otherwise whoever selected injured Walton is in a bit of trouble

THAT season, Kukoc was not a deadly shooter, especially from 3p line. That's what i mean.

And about Bill Walton, it's not like I will start him and give him heavy minutes. He is my BACKUP center, Cowens will start over him.

[LamarMatic7]

I get that, but since we are using the season to judge the player, I think it would be fair to grade him on that season alone. Where going for the 1 championship, not building a dynasty.

Otherwise whoever selected injured Walton is in a bit of trouble

I do believe that context matters though. Kukoc had shot the 3 his whole career. Does this ability automatically disappear just because I picked the "2001-02 Kukoc"? Is it set in stone that he has to shoot at 31%?

[BatumtheGlue]

I get that, but since we are using the season to judge the player, I think it would be fair to grade him on that season alone. Where going for the 1 championship, not building a dynasty.

Otherwise whoever selected injured Walton is in a bit of trouble

I do believe that context matters though. Kukoc had shot the 3 his whole career. Does this ability automatically disappear just because I picked the "2001-02 Kukoc"? Is it set in stone that he has to shoot at 31%?

He shoot 3 ball at 31% has set in stone that season. Chris Paul is above average 3p shooter his whole career, but rookie Chris Paul was a disaster from 3p line. If you picked a rookie Chris Paul that means you have a PG without respectable outside shoot.

[LamarMatic7]

I get that, but since we are using the season to judge the player, I think it would be fair to grade him on that season alone. Where going for the 1 championship, not building a dynasty.

Otherwise whoever selected injured Walton is in a bit of trouble

I do believe that context matters though. Kukoc had shot the 3 his whole career. Does this ability automatically disappear just because I picked the "2001-02 Kukoc"? Is it set in stone that he has to shoot at 31%?

He shoot 3 ball at 31% has set in stone that season. Chris Paul is above average 3p shooter his whole career, but rookie Chris Paul was a disaster from 3p line. If you picked a rookie Chris Paul that means you have a PG without respectable outside shoot.

But there's the difference. If you pick a rookie version of a player it's understood that he hasn't picked up particular skills. In the case of Kukoc, shooting threes is a thing he did his whole career. It's not like he forgot how to shoot at the age of 33. Context affects those numbers - the threes he had to take, the looks his teammates got him, the role he played etc.

If that shooting percentage is set in stone, then you might as well pick every random guy who had a season of 20PPG for a 19-win team and claim that his 51% from the field and scoring is definite. A team of Antoine Carr's, Charles Smith's and whoever had a scoring binge on a pathetic team is this supposed powerhouse.

I'm not here pushing any Kukoc agenda but I just found it weird that I could get docked points for Kukoc shooting 31% this particular year. If the 2000-01 season of him was available, would it automatically mean that he's a 45% shooter and that's it? Even when most of those looks came in 17 games for Atlanta?

I say - no, that's not who Kukoc was. Numbers aren't everything and Kukoc certainly wasn't a 45% shooter from the 3.

[BatumtheGlue]

I do believe that context matters though. Kukoc had shot the 3 his whole career. Does this ability automatically disappear just because I picked the "2001-02 Kukoc"? Is it set in stone that he has to shoot at 31%?

He shoot 3 ball at 31% has set in stone that season. Chris Paul is above average 3p shooter his whole career, but rookie Chris Paul was a disaster from 3p line. If you picked a rookie Chris Paul that means you have a PG without respectable outside shoot.

But there's the difference. If you pick a rookie version of a player it's understood that he hasn't picked up particular skills. In the case of Kukoc, shooting threes is a thing he did his whole career. It's not like he forgot how to shoot at the age of 33. Context affects those numbers - the threes he had to take, the looks his teammates got him, the role he played etc.

If that shooting percentage is set in stone, then you might as well pick every random guy who had a season of 20PPG for a 19-win team and claim that his 51% from the field and scoring is definite. A team of Antoine Carr's, Charles Smith's and whoever had a scoring binge on a pathetic team is this supposed powerhouse.

I'm not here pushing any Kukoc agenda but I just found it weird that I could get docked points for Kukoc shooting 31% this particular year. If the 2000-01 season of him was available, would it automatically mean that he's a 45% shooter and that's it? Even when most of those looks came in 17 games for Atlanta?

I say - no, that's not who Kukoc was. Numbers aren't everything and Kukoc certainly wasn't a 45% shooter from the 3.

I understand what you meant. But if we judge a player by who he was/is in his whole career, then what the need of picking one season of a player's career when we draft our players?

Ben Wallace won 4 DPOY but that doesn't mean he played at that level for his whole career. Just like Rick Barry, in the season I picked him, he wasn't a dominating force like in his early career anymore, and that's Rick Barry's version i got for my team. He was still pretty good tho :p

[LamarMatic7]

He shoot 3 ball at 31% has set in stone that season. Chris Paul is above average 3p shooter his whole career, but rookie Chris Paul was a disaster from 3p line. If you picked a rookie Chris Paul that means you have a PG without respectable outside shoot.

But there's the difference. If you pick a rookie version of a player it's understood that he hasn't picked up particular skills. In the case of Kukoc, shooting threes is a thing he did his whole career. It's not like he forgot how to shoot at the age of 33. Context affects those numbers - the threes he had to take, the looks his teammates got him, the role he played etc.

If that shooting percentage is set in stone, then you might as well pick every random guy who had a season of 20PPG for a 19-win team and claim that his 51% from the field and scoring is definite. A team of Antoine Carr's, Charles Smith's and whoever had a scoring binge on a pathetic team is this supposed powerhouse.

I'm not here pushing any Kukoc agenda but I just found it weird that I could get docked points for Kukoc shooting 31% this particular year. If the 2000-01 season of him was available, would it automatically mean that he's a 45% shooter and that's it? Even when most of those looks came in 17 games for Atlanta?

I say - no, that's not who Kukoc was. Numbers aren't everything and Kukoc certainly wasn't a 45% shooter from the 3.

I understand what you meant. But if we judge a player by who he was/is in his whole career, then what the need of picking one season of a player's career when we draft our players?

Ben Wallace won 4 DPOY but that doesn't mean he played at that level for his whole career. Just like Rick Barry, in the season I picked him, he wasn't a dominating force like in his early career anymore, and that's Rick Barry's version i got for my team. He was still pretty good tho :p

I'm not judging Kukoc by who he was his whole career. I'm judging him as a shooter, something that more or less stays with a player for his whole career (with there obviously also being players who improve).

[James Gatz]

Tom Chambers - Expansion - 1981-1982

???

You mean Forgotten Cities of SD/KC?

Probably.

Yeah, sorry about that! Long day at the office.

[EwingSweatsALot]

This pick is predicated on the fact that Terry Cummings can play both forward positions. Especially since I have him as a rookie his athleticism is top notch and he can easily guard the 3. Hardwood Paroxysm had a good article on Cummings and how he detailed out guarding SFs and going against them offensively. So Cummings who will play some four for me will mostly be in a SF role.

My goal is to try and be able to play as many ways as possible. So I'm adding to my Swiss army knife of big men. I've already got the defensive guy who can switch and get boards. I've got the prime time HOF big who can do everything. I've got the young big who can switch on D, protect the rim, stretch the floor, and post up, and I've got the stretch big who shoots the lights out.

I now need a bruiser down low. A physical force of strength. An immovable object. A guy that's gonna leave opposing players bruised and battered. A guy that still uses a flip phone and might be a large drug supplier in the Hoosier state. A guy who at one point thought their was a Christmas break in the NBA. A guy who is not afraid to choke out your best player. The pride of Marion, Indiana.

Zach Randolph, 2010-11, Hooiser

20 points/12 boards/2 assists/1.5 stocks/50% shooting/3rd team All NBA

An old school throwback guy that is bigger and stronger than all the old school throw back guys. He can fit next to almost all the guys I have down low. He knows how to perfectly play with a defensive big that can play in the high post,ive got two of those. He's going to fit in nicely. And if anybody ever tries anything on of his teammates he's gonna be right there to step on that guys throat. He's an enforcer of manlihood and sheer will power on the Block.

[Flip Murray]

the pickings are beyond slim right now. I need a backup big. Looking for stiffs.

[-Ian-]

It took some time for Randolph to get picked.

[fatlever]

ESaL helped me make my next pick. Zach was very tempting for my next pick, but he's not at all a player that I really needed, as he'd be stuck behind Karl Malone, Moses Malone, Larry Johnson and possibly Andrew Bogut. He'd be a helluva a 5th big to have, but I can find better uses of my Hoosiers pick, maybe someone who isn't as talented as Zach, but certainly a better fit for my roster.

[EwingSweatsALot]

ESaL helped me make my next pick. Zach was very tempting for my next pick, but he's not at all a player that I really needed, as he'd be stuck behind Karl Malone, Moses Malone, Larry Johnson and possibly Andrew Bogut. He'd be a helluva a 5th big to have, but I can find better uses of my Hoosiers pick, maybe someone who isn't as talented as Zach, but certainly a better fit for my roster.

I probably should have gone George Hill as a fit pick and defensive PG, but the fact I could move Cummings to SF opened up a PF spot for me. Randolph and Rodman at the four give me a lot of different options and lineups I can mess with. And hopefully I have other options that can guard PGs and move Curry and Stoudamire around on D.

[EwingSweatsALot]

Also with that pick, I'm sure you can tell that the guesses for my All NBA pick weren't correct. Yalls guesses also have me second guessing if I'm.picking the right guy since nobody brought the guys name up.