Pick your all-time starting-5 (today's rules)

[Manocad]

Ah okay. Easy answer there. The answer to that question is no, because there's also a value to unpredictability. If everyone shot nothing but threes there would be less incentive to guard anything else.

Ironically Kevin Durant is a prime example of this- he's been absolutely feasting in the mid range (in addition to his outside shooting) because most defensive strategies emphasize guarding the paint and the perimeter for efficiency reasons. The mid range will never be the primary way a team or player scores again because in vacuum it's objectively less efficient, but it'll always exist at some level, as well scoring in the paint, of course.

Still, a high end scorer that prominently uses the 3 point shot and does so effectively is going to be more efficient than the player who tries to score closer to the basket- those shots are by definition more efficient per attempt. That'll be true for any player who is a focal point of the offense. There will always, of course, be roles for guys like Clint Capela who only take a shot attempt when they have a point blank dunk, usually gotten either off an offensive rebound or a setup from a more talented big man.

Unless it's Wilt Chamberlain shooting 70% from the field and averaging 50 points a game.

He never did both. Not even by half. That's just disingenuous.

That's fair. I'll go with 50 PPG and a .506 FG % in the same season followed by 45 PPG and .528 the following year. By comparison, Durant's best seasons were 32 PPG at .503 and 25 PPG at .537. Same shooting percentages, and I kinda like 50/45 vs 32/25. Oh yeah, let's not forget those 20+ boards as well as the blocks for Wilt. Durant is an average defensive player at best; he's a 7-footer with career 7.1 RPG and 1.1 BPG. He has a championship ring for one reason and one reason only--he went to a loaded team. He's a great offensive player of his generation but he's only offense.

Basically, I don't look at this as a "today's NBA" debate. Great players are great players. I don't think that "This is what teams are focusing on now" has any bearing on what players throughout history, if assembled on the same team today, would make an all time great team.

[Manocad]

Just change the title of the thread to "Best 3-point shooting team of all time." That's really what's being asked for.

[Snakebites]

Unless it's Wilt Chamberlain shooting 70% from the field and averaging 50 points a game.

He never did both. Not even by half. That's just disingenuous.

That's fair. I'll go with 50 PPG and a .506 FG % in the same season followed by 45 PPG and .528 the following year. By comparison, Durant's best seasons were 32 PPG at .503 and 25 PPG at .537. Same shooting percentages, and I kinda like 50/45 vs 32/25. Oh yeah, let's not forget those 20+ boards as well as the blocks for Wilt. Durant is an average defensive player at best; he's a 7-footer with career 7.1 RPG and 1.1 BPG. He has a championship ring for one reason and one reason only--he went to a loaded team. He's a great offensive player of his generation but he's only offense.

Basically, I don't look at this as a "today's NBA" debate. Great players are great players. I don't think that "This is what teams are focusing on now" has any bearing on what players throughout history, if assembled on the same team today, would make an all time great team.

Wilt Chamberlain still scored fewer points per shot than Durant did. And it's not even close. 50 points per game on 40 shots is actually pretty pedestrian efficiency. his true shooting % was between 53 and 55%, which is pretty bad. A typical peak year for Durant is like 10 percent better than that at around 63%, and a lot of that difference is proficiency with the three point shot. I actually wouldn't want someone scoring 50 points if it took them 40 shots to do it, I'd think that at least some of those shots could go more efficiently elsewhere. That probably wasn't true in Wilt's time, since shooting simply hadn't elevated to the heights it has now, but it's certainly true in virtually every era after that- I don't even need to involve the "modern NBA" card for that one.

I'd really strongly suspect you stop looking at FG%. It makes you seem really dated- that's largely understood to be a useless way of evaluating scoring efficiency. It's like batting average in baseball- nobody serious about comparing players' offensive capabilities uses it- and for good reason- it simply doesn't get at the core issue.

Rebounds are tough to compare across eras, but I won't deny Wilt is one of the best rebounders of all time. I don't know about comparing them as overall players, but that's never what I was addressing. You were trying to argue for big men that don't shoot threes as better scorers than someone like Durant, with what I'll frankly call a pretty feeble attempt at using the math.

I don't really care to provide an all time starting 5. These are always pretty silly exercises anyway.

It's also funny you mention having a loaded team. How would you describe the 1967 Sixers and the 1972 Lakers? I'd gladly use the "L" word to describe both.

[Manocad]

He never did both. Not even by half. That's just disingenuous.

That's fair. I'll go with 50 PPG and a .506 FG % in the same season followed by 45 PPG and .528 the following year. By comparison, Durant's best seasons were 32 PPG at .503 and 25 PPG at .537. Same shooting percentages, and I kinda like 50/45 vs 32/25. Oh yeah, let's not forget those 20+ boards as well as the blocks for Wilt. Durant is an average defensive player at best; he's a 7-footer with career 7.1 RPG and 1.1 BPG. He has a championship ring for one reason and one reason only--he went to a loaded team. He's a great offensive player of his generation but he's only offense.

Basically, I don't look at this as a "today's NBA" debate. Great players are great players. I don't think that "This is what teams are focusing on now" has any bearing on what players throughout history, if assembled on the same team today, would make an all time great team.

Wilt Chamberlain still scored fewer points per shot than Durant did. And it's not even close. 50 points per game on 40 shots is actually pretty pedestrian efficiency. his true shooting % was between 53 and 55%, which is pretty bad. A typical peak year for Durant is like 10 percent better than that at around 63%, and a lot of that difference is proficiency with the three point shot. I actually wouldn't want someone scoring 50 points if it took them 40 shots to do it, I'd think that at least some of those shots could go more efficiently elsewhere. That probably wasn't true in Wilt's time, since shooting simply hadn't elevated to the heights it has now, but it's certainly true in virtually every era after that- I don't even need to involve the "modern NBA" card for that one.

I'd really strongly suspect you stop looking at FG%. It makes you seem really dated- that's largely understood to be a useless way of evaluating scoring efficiency. It's like batting average in baseball- nobody serious about comparing players' offensive capabilities uses it- and for good reason- it simply doesn't get at the core issue.

Rebounds are tough to compare across eras, but I won't deny Wilt is one of the best rebounders of all time. I don't know about comparing them as overall players, but that's never what I was addressing. You were trying to argue for big men that don't shoot threes as better scorers than someone like Durant, with what I'll frankly call a pretty feeble attempt at using the math.

It's also funny you mention having a loaded team. How would you describe the 1967 Sixers and the 1972 Lakers? I'd gladly use the "L" word to describe both.

I'd suggest you stop ignoring how a player's lack of rebounding and defense affect the game; it makes you look really dated. You like scoring and you're young so you didn't see a lot of the greats play--I get it. Rebounds are tough to compare across eras? LOL. 7 vs 20+ isn't an "era" issue. It's good vs not good.

Let's just agree to disagree. This little passive aggressive insulting/superiority game is dumb.

[Snakebites]

That's fair. I'll go with 50 PPG and a .506 FG % in the same season followed by 45 PPG and .528 the following year. By comparison, Durant's best seasons were 32 PPG at .503 and 25 PPG at .537. Same shooting percentages, and I kinda like 50/45 vs 32/25. Oh yeah, let's not forget those 20+ boards as well as the blocks for Wilt. Durant is an average defensive player at best; he's a 7-footer with career 7.1 RPG and 1.1 BPG. He has a championship ring for one reason and one reason only--he went to a loaded team. He's a great offensive player of his generation but he's only offense.

Basically, I don't look at this as a "today's NBA" debate. Great players are great players. I don't think that "This is what teams are focusing on now" has any bearing on what players throughout history, if assembled on the same team today, would make an all time great team.

Wilt Chamberlain still scored fewer points per shot than Durant did. And it's not even close. 50 points per game on 40 shots is actually pretty pedestrian efficiency. his true shooting % was between 53 and 55%, which is pretty bad. A typical peak year for Durant is like 10 percent better than that at around 63%, and a lot of that difference is proficiency with the three point shot. I actually wouldn't want someone scoring 50 points if it took them 40 shots to do it, I'd think that at least some of those shots could go more efficiently elsewhere. That probably wasn't true in Wilt's time, since shooting simply hadn't elevated to the heights it has now, but it's certainly true in virtually every era after that- I don't even need to involve the "modern NBA" card for that one.

I'd really strongly suspect you stop looking at FG%. It makes you seem really dated- that's largely understood to be a useless way of evaluating scoring efficiency. It's like batting average in baseball- nobody serious about comparing players' offensive capabilities uses it- and for good reason- it simply doesn't get at the core issue.

Rebounds are tough to compare across eras, but I won't deny Wilt is one of the best rebounders of all time. I don't know about comparing them as overall players, but that's never what I was addressing. You were trying to argue for big men that don't shoot threes as better scorers than someone like Durant, with what I'll frankly call a pretty feeble attempt at using the math.

It's also funny you mention having a loaded team. How would you describe the 1967 Sixers and the 1972 Lakers? I'd gladly use the "L" word to describe both.

I'd suggest you stop ignoring how a player's lack of rebounding and defense affect the game; it makes you look really dated. You like scoring and you're young so you didn't see a lot of the greats play--I get it. Rebounds are tough to compare across eras? LOL. 7 vs 20+ isn't an "era" issue. It's good vs not good.

Let's just agree to disagree. This little passive aggressive insulting/superiority game is dumb.

This was certainly a discouraging exchange.

[Manocad]

Wilt Chamberlain still scored fewer points per shot than Durant did. And it's not even close. 50 points per game on 40 shots is actually pretty pedestrian efficiency. his true shooting % was between 53 and 55%, which is pretty bad. A typical peak year for Durant is like 10 percent better than that at around 63%, and a lot of that difference is proficiency with the three point shot. I actually wouldn't want someone scoring 50 points if it took them 40 shots to do it, I'd think that at least some of those shots could go more efficiently elsewhere. That probably wasn't true in Wilt's time, since shooting simply hadn't elevated to the heights it has now, but it's certainly true in virtually every era after that- I don't even need to involve the "modern NBA" card for that one.

I'd really strongly suspect you stop looking at FG%. It makes you seem really dated- that's largely understood to be a useless way of evaluating scoring efficiency. It's like batting average in baseball- nobody serious about comparing players' offensive capabilities uses it- and for good reason- it simply doesn't get at the core issue.

Rebounds are tough to compare across eras, but I won't deny Wilt is one of the best rebounders of all time. I don't know about comparing them as overall players, but that's never what I was addressing. You were trying to argue for big men that don't shoot threes as better scorers than someone like Durant, with what I'll frankly call a pretty feeble attempt at using the math.

It's also funny you mention having a loaded team. How would you describe the 1967 Sixers and the 1972 Lakers? I'd gladly use the "L" word to describe both.

I'd suggest you stop ignoring how a player's lack of rebounding and defense affect the game; it makes you look really dated. You like scoring and you're young so you didn't see a lot of the greats play--I get it. Rebounds are tough to compare across eras? LOL. 7 vs 20+ isn't an "era" issue. It's good vs not good.

Let's just agree to disagree. This little passive aggressive insulting/superiority game is dumb.

I wasn't dismissing rebounding. Not even a little bit, I have absolutely no idea how you could have gotten that from my post. I think that paragraph makes that super clear. I'm not even saying Durant was a better player than Wilt, just a better scorer. Scoring was always the terms I was in this discussion for, from the first word I stated. I presented a clear case for why Wilt's 50 ppg season is not the impressive scoring feat it might seem, and you chose to completely ignore what I had to say and instead threw my words back at me with a straw man.

I can't agree to disagree when I don't believe you ever approached this discussion honestly, but I've certainly lost interest in continuing a discussion you don't really appear interested in genuinely having.

You've frustrated me, and I'm starting to suspect that was your goal. You win, I guess.

And to talk only about scoring when the point of the thread was what would be the best all time team in today's NBA is disingenuous in and of itself, especially when my original point was that there were better historical options than KD from a building the best team standpoint. You keep accusing me of straw man arguments while you stick with the red herrings.

I can't help what gets you frustrated. My goal was nothing more than to offer my perspective on the topic. You know me--this is nothing more than an internet forum to me. No more, no less. It's a plaything and I treat it as such.

[Manocad]

Wilt Chamberlain still scored fewer points per shot than Durant did. And it's not even close. 50 points per game on 40 shots is actually pretty pedestrian efficiency. his true shooting % was between 53 and 55%, which is pretty bad. A typical peak year for Durant is like 10 percent better than that at around 63%, and a lot of that difference is proficiency with the three point shot. I actually wouldn't want someone scoring 50 points if it took them 40 shots to do it, I'd think that at least some of those shots could go more efficiently elsewhere. That probably wasn't true in Wilt's time, since shooting simply hadn't elevated to the heights it has now, but it's certainly true in virtually every era after that- I don't even need to involve the "modern NBA" card for that one.

I'd really strongly suspect you stop looking at FG%. It makes you seem really dated- that's largely understood to be a useless way of evaluating scoring efficiency. It's like batting average in baseball- nobody serious about comparing players' offensive capabilities uses it- and for good reason- it simply doesn't get at the core issue.

Rebounds are tough to compare across eras, but I won't deny Wilt is one of the best rebounders of all time. I don't know about comparing them as overall players, but that's never what I was addressing. You were trying to argue for big men that don't shoot threes as better scorers than someone like Durant, with what I'll frankly call a pretty feeble attempt at using the math.

It's also funny you mention having a loaded team. How would you describe the 1967 Sixers and the 1972 Lakers? I'd gladly use the "L" word to describe both.

I'd suggest you stop ignoring how a player's lack of rebounding and defense affect the game; it makes you look really dated. You like scoring and you're young so you didn't see a lot of the greats play--I get it. Rebounds are tough to compare across eras? LOL. 7 vs 20+ isn't an "era" issue. It's good vs not good.

Let's just agree to disagree. This little passive aggressive insulting/superiority game is dumb.

This was certainly a discouraging exchange.

That statement alludes to a concept that approval is sought. In the immortal words of Dirty Harry Callahan--"I'm afraid you've...misjudged me."

[Snakebites]

I'd suggest you stop ignoring how a player's lack of rebounding and defense affect the game; it makes you look really dated. You like scoring and you're young so you didn't see a lot of the greats play--I get it. Rebounds are tough to compare across eras? LOL. 7 vs 20+ isn't an "era" issue. It's good vs not good.

Let's just agree to disagree. This little passive aggressive insulting/superiority game is dumb.

I wasn't dismissing rebounding. Not even a little bit, I have absolutely no idea how you could have gotten that from my post. I think that paragraph makes that super clear. I'm not even saying Durant was a better player than Wilt, just a better scorer. Scoring was always the terms I was in this discussion for, from the first word I stated. I presented a clear case for why Wilt's 50 ppg season is not the impressive scoring feat it might seem, and you chose to completely ignore what I had to say and instead threw my words back at me with a straw man.

I can't agree to disagree when I don't believe you ever approached this discussion honestly, but I've certainly lost interest in continuing a discussion you don't really appear interested in genuinely having.

You've frustrated me, and I'm starting to suspect that was your goal. You win, I guess.

And to talk only about scoring when the point of the thread was what would be the best all time team in today's NBA is disingenuous in and of itself, especially when my original point was that there were better historical options than KD from a building the best team standpoint. You keep accusing me of straw man arguments while you stick with the red herrings.

I can't help what gets you frustrated. My goal was nothing more than to offer my perspective on the topic. You know me--this is nothing more than an internet forum to me. No more, no less. It's a plaything and I treat it as such.

Heh. I guess I didn't edit out the more hostile response in time.

In any event, I guess I was more interested in addressing the specific points you made about scoring and three point shooting than I was in the overall topic of the thread. I don't think that's disingenuous. I thought I was pretty up front about what I was talking about from the word go. I still think I was. If that wasn't the discussion you wanted to have, then fine.

For the record, I do not consider Durant a top 5 player nor would I place him on my all time starting 5 if I was warranted to make such a thing, which I'm not. I do, however, consider him a better SCORER than Wilt. I don't even consider Wilt the best among low-post centers as a scorer. Kareem and Shaq (who you mention in this thread, I believe), and probably Hakeem too, appear to be better than him in that regard even though they don't have 50 PPG seasons.

And no, I did not seek approval. I was actually stupid enough to think I might be able to change someone's mind on the internet. Which was definitely my mistake.

[Manocad]

I wasn't dismissing rebounding. Not even a little bit, I have absolutely no idea how you could have gotten that from my post. I think that paragraph makes that super clear. I'm not even saying Durant was a better player than Wilt, just a better scorer. Scoring was always the terms I was in this discussion for, from the first word I stated. I presented a clear case for why Wilt's 50 ppg season is not the impressive scoring feat it might seem, and you chose to completely ignore what I had to say and instead threw my words back at me with a straw man.

I can't agree to disagree when I don't believe you ever approached this discussion honestly, but I've certainly lost interest in continuing a discussion you don't really appear interested in genuinely having.

You've frustrated me, and I'm starting to suspect that was your goal. You win, I guess.

And to talk only about scoring when the point of the thread was what would be the best all time team in today's NBA is disingenuous in and of itself, especially when my original point was that there were better historical options than KD from a building the best team standpoint. You keep accusing me of straw man arguments while you stick with the red herrings.

I can't help what gets you frustrated. My goal was nothing more than to offer my perspective on the topic. You know me--this is nothing more than an internet forum to me. No more, no less. It's a plaything and I treat it as such.

Heh. I guess I didn't edit out the more hostile response in time.

In any event, I guess I was more interested in addressing the specific points you made about scoring and three point shooting than I was in the overall topic of the thread. I don't think that's disingenuous. I thought I was pretty up front about what I was talking about from the word go. I still think I was. If that wasn't the discussion you wanted to have, then fine.

For the record, I do not consider Durant a top 5 player nor would I place him on my all time starting 5 if I was warranted to make such a thing, which I'm not. I do, however, consider him a better SCORER than Wilt. I don't even consider Wilt the best among low-post centers as a scorer. Kareem and Shaq (who you mention in this thread, I believe), and probably Hakeem too, appear to be better than him in that regard even though they don't have 50 PPG seasons.

And no, I did not seek approval. I was actually stupid enough to think I might be able to change someone's mind on the internet. Which was definitely my mistake.

And that's the difference between us. You feel a need to change someone's mind, meaning you feel a need for them to agree with you. That's seeking approval of your opinion. What about that are you missing? That's so utterly basic in logical debate that I feel I'm pointing it out to a child.

[tmorgan]

You kids crack me up. Open up a topic, suggest an idea, say "What do you think?" then throw hissy fits when someone challenges your idea.

Concerned about my mental health? LOL.

Exactly. And that crap blue wrote about how Kareem played must have come directly from Bill Simmons, because it’s nonsense.

Anyone who wants Kawhi Leonard in their “make a best team of 5, all factors considered” is laughable anyway.

[Uncle Mxy]

Chauncey Billups
Dave Bing
Grant Hill
Dennis Rodman
Bill Laimbeer
C'mon, tear it apart. I know you want to. If they're not Pistons, they don't count, so screw 'em.

[Manocad]

You kids crack me up. Open up a topic, suggest an idea, say "What do you think?" then throw hissy fits when someone challenges your idea.

Concerned about my mental health? LOL.

Exactly. And that crap blue wrote about how Kareem played must have come directly from Bill Simmons, because it’s nonsense.

Anyone who wants Kawhi Leonard in their “make a best team of 5, all factors considered” is laughable anyway.

I don't care what the NBA rules are. I'll take Wilt, Kareem or Olajuwon at center all day, every day. And I'd feed them the ball on every possession against the Lebrons, Dirks and Kevin Durants of today's NBA. Is Lebron a strong power forward? Sure. And Kevin freakin' McHale would eat him for lunch in the post.

[Manocad]

Chauncey Billups
Dave Bing
Grant Hill
Dennis Rodman
Bill Laimbeer
C'mon, tear it apart. I know you want to. If they're not Pistons, they don't count, so screw 'em.

I loved Chauncey but there's no way I can't go with Isiah at point guard. I can roll with Bing at SG and Laimbeer at C, but I think that lineup is a little logjammed with both Hill and Rodman. Swap out either one for Rasheed Wallace for a true PF and I'm good.

[Uncle Mxy]

I'm down with Sheed in place of Rodman. Laimbeer + Rodman was meant to cause today's players to cry home to their mommies with a front court, but Sheed would do nicely yes.

The choice of Chauncey or Isiah was about who'd play best in today's rules. Dumars was also on the table, especially with Hill as a point forward and Bing being a combo guard too. In any event, it'd a great "share the ball" frontcourt.

My thinking was that Bing, Hill, and Laimbeer would be better now than they were in their eras.

[TPA]

CP3
Jordan
Pippen
LBJ
Olajuwon

Not the greatest three-point shooting squad, but each are adequate enough to be respected and draw defenders at the arch (save for Hakeem). Each are incredible defenders at their positions. Each can get their own shot.

I don’t get why people like Pippen > Kawhi. Kawhi is a much better outside shooter. He’s a 2x F-MVP.. a better scorer. A 2x D-MVP.. arguably a better (or at the very least equal) defender. He brings the ball up the court just as well as Pippen. He passes just as well. Don’t get it.

CP3 I love, for sure. But I just don’t see why you’d put someone on the court who can get switched to and abused in the low-post. Even 6-4 elite defenders.. Payton, Kidd, Frazier.. i think are pushing it. 6-0 CP3 no way, for me.

While I didn't spend half of my afternoon thinking this through, I stand by the squad I rolled out. CP3 may be a smaller PG in height @ 6'1", but he's got great hands, defensive instincts, and heart. He's a pure point guard with vision and he can knock down a shot from anywhere on the court, including the three-pointer, which is one of the areas of weakness I identified for my squad. I like Kidd a lot, and he would be a great point guard choice on any squad, but I'm a big fan of Paul's overall skill-set and think he brings the well-rounded game that compliments this team better.
Leonard may be a higher percentage shooter, but I believe Pippin is as good of a defender, is a better facilitator, and can fill the needed SF role on this team, as constructed.
I guess we can sit around and poke holes in anybody's hypothetical squad, but I'd put mine up against any of these others that have been shared. It's just for fun right?