FGA Restricted All-Time Fantasy Draft Playoffs WCR1: (3) OrlandoTill vs (6) BasketballFan7

[BasketballFan7]

Payton is an off guard in a point guard's body, and -- with McMillan handling the ball at the top of the key and distributing like a member of the United States Post Office -- Payton was free to be himself. Payton ran his defender, Michael Jordan, through a myriad of screens, posted Jordan up and took Jordan out to 3-point land. Payton scored 21 points, lobbed to Shawn Kemp whenever possible and became his old motor-mouth self.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/1996/06/13/sports/nba-finals-mcmillan-puts-bulls-brooms-in-closet.html

[ElGee]

I know my starting lineup isn't quite up your alley. I understand the concerns about redundancy, but there were sacrifices to be made to accomplish what I was aiming for. Ie universal defense, playmaking, rebounding, general versatility, and overall talent. We wanted wrongly undervalued players.

In other matchups, Glove / Johnson may not start. I assume that you would like this lineup a lot more:

McMillan
Moncrief
Battier
Barkley
Wilt

Actually, I think even just subbing Johnson with Battier probably makes you feel better. Johnson has the makings of a stellar sixth man, and Battier is a wonderful glue guy.

But the above lineup allows Payton to pick on bench guards and Johnson to take a bit of Barkley's playmaking role when he is sitting. I wouldn't classify Johnson as a point forward as much as I would a talented passer at the foreword position. He doesn't have to have the ball, and he wasn't comfortable truly orchestrating an offense.

That said, they start here because they played their counterparts in real life and did well in the process. They're still just nominal starters - McMillan and Battier are going to play big minutes, though not always together.

I don't envision Barkley and Wilt having fit problems. They don't act as hubs simultaneously. '67 Wilt was clearly willing to do what was required to win. He can move lower in the post when Barkley is the hub, and that's when he isn't screening (Bill Russell praised his screening). And it isn't as if he isn't touching the ball, so he isn't going to become disengaged.I don't think it's controversial to have him doing things a bit differently than he was. That was his mentality in 1967, and he became an even lower usage superstar with the Lakers. Wilt was also enamored with efficiency, so I can see him buying into, when not acting as the hub or setting screens, becoming a lob target and put back machine when Hakeem moves to assist elsewhere.

Also, even if you don't buy into the ball movement that I suggest I will have with 5 plus passers sharing the court, it's not really necessary. When those five share the court, they can find a mismatch. All five can attack, and even without the constant off ball action it's quite obvious all of these guys are adept at making the pass when help comes off. Rinse and repeat until there is a shot.

Which I know you probably don't like it's seemingly not your style of basketball. However, it's intentional. Defenses are too stingy in a league like this. There isn't always going to be a great shot available. Every team here is like the Warriors on offense but their opponents aren't the Cavaliers defensively. We put together a host of great passers because ball movement is essential. We have players who have to be doubled, so there will be that ball movement. But we can also find the weakest defender and iso him if there is nothing going.

I don't think I overstated the effect the years selected would have. Erving, Marion, Ratliff, and Ostertag are all far worse than their name values suggest. Allen and Harden are both fine, but all I said was that they weren't their peak selves.

At the very least, that starting five isn't going to be sharing the court together a ton. And I expect that alleviates your concerns. Battier and McMillan are superior defenders and floor spacers, and Outlaw was a big impact guy. None of them need to take shots to add impact.

Also, even with offensive halfcourt redundancy still a point of contention, we are nevertheless still deeper, more athletic, younger and better in transition, on the glass, and defensively.[/spoiler]

All very good points. I do like that lineup better in a vacuum.

Please understand, it's not an aesthetic thing, it's what yields the highest ceiling. I disagree about stingy defense -- if you're playing a juggernaut offense -- a Warriors Level Offense -- even elite defenses aren't going to bring that down to earth; there's a resiliency to the style we've seen time and time again.

Have those offenses encountered a similar level of defensive talent? Genuine question.
Those offenses are perfect storms. It's tough to imagine upgrading the Warriors much at all. Has that happened on the defensive side of the ball? 2008 Boston, for example, was obviously stellar. But it's not tough to imagine how they could have been an even better defense.

Now, if you're playing a team that CAN be marginalized with good defense, then you can get away with the more resilient, but lower-ceiling game of isolation (that's where iso has good value). Obviously you don't have to do this all the time, but passing and shooting (and especially 3-point shooting) are going to take offenses to new heights (a la Nash's Suns, Warriors) and if you lack this there's only so much we can expect. That's the rub. Of course, not saying you built an iso-ridden team, just clarifying this point.

Right, iso isn't the plan, although we do want that threat. Attacking is the plan. But in this league a team is seldom going to have more than one weak defender on the court at a time. In order to get the defense scrambling, I need to make them send help. I need to compromise their defense. Hitting the weak link is the easiest way to make them send help, and when GP / Moncrief / Johnson / Charles / Wilt are on the court, we can make that happen. Subbing Battier in for Johnson helps in some very obvious ways, and at the same time it allows Kyle Korver (for instance) to get away with standing in the corner and out of the action defensively. If a team has an outstanding help defender at the 3, Battier can come in and drag him back away from the action.

I think the next issue is ego and this concept of coach ability. Wilt is so strange, even in 67, that I have a hard time just accepting that because he's picked in an ATL from this year that he's going to display optimal decision-making. I don't knock that as much as much as someone like Doc MJ might, but I don't think it's a given he just has some perfect fit with these guys, especially if he's not the center of attention. Similarly, I think it's hard to expect 96 Payton to come off the bench and think things will be hunky-dory. (Is he coming off the bench for Nate? )No arguments here. It's difficult for me as well. I responded in one matchup about the same topic. Is Alonzo Mourning really going to shift into DeAndre Jordan for the sake of the team? Is it really that simple? But Wilt is still the best player on the team. He wasn't shooting a ton in '67. 11 attempts per 36 minutes, and when adjusted for pace that number has to be roughly 9 attempts per 36 minutes in today's game (quick estimate). That's Marcin Gortat territory.

GP is the nominal starter. I don't truly know how to answer the ego question. The boundaries of this alternate universe weren't really laid out too precisely :lol

So you say to Wilt, play your "Russell role," but then what does that do to Barkley's value given how he likes to play? I think you've constructed an excellent defense around Barkley, but I'm not sold on how these two guys fit together. And before you say "well that doesn't mean my offense will struggle" -- especially if you float that lineup that I like more -- it's more of a question of how good the offense can be and how redundancies can muck stuff up. This is where the uncertainty of Wilt comes into play to me. Is he a super-upgraded 2016 Andrew Bogut, killing it on D (I can buy that) with good passing on offense, better O-rebounding, better finishing and better on the occasional iso post possession? Or do you tell him to play in mid-post and have these guys that weren't really "cutters" go cutting and screening everywhere like the 67 Sixers? It's not obvious to me.

Barkley is definitely the anchor offensively. He is one of the greatest offensive anchors there have ever been, and with the selection of Barkley I knew I almost instantaneously had a quality offensive ceiling and needed to place defenders and two way players around him. In other matchups, Wilt may equal Barkley in primacy, but I think I made it clear in my opening argument that I'm excited about the prospect of Barkley being defended by the 32 year old Marion. Do I expect Wilt to have time as the offensive hub and use his threat of scoring (was still the third leading scorer in the NBA despite low FGA, and had higher volume in '66) to hit his teammates? Clearly, because this isn't a video game and Barkley can only command the offense so much of the time. But it's definitely Barkley's offense to run first and foremost if that question has to be answered. But, again, universal playmaking is key here because I don't have great spacing in the traditional sense in that original starting lineup. If you can't shoot 3s, you better be able to make plays passing.

So, yes, Wilt could be called a super-upgraded Andrew Bogut here. Not as low volume as Bogut was, obviously. Still, like I said, his FGA/possession in '67 was low. He doesn't need to fill it up. But there is obviously room for a role for him that has him making decisions in the offense. When not doing that, we need the insane defense, screen-setting, opportunistic passing, rebounding, and a threat on the alley-oop. He isn't going to be hanging out in the mid-post with the ball as much as he is going to be doing these other things, as Barkley will more often occupy that spot on the floor.

"Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play."

-- Bill Russell, Great Moments in Pro Basketball, (by Sam Goldaper) p.24

Enjoyed your last response so will consider how you answers these before voting.

It's a good question because off the top of my head I can't think of an in-depth study. I personally think of Nash's Suns just torching the Spurs (despite losing) and we know that in general good defenses will slow down good offenses (which is why we use relative offensive rating) but in the sense of absolute offensive efficiency giving up 1.10 PPP is still no bueno. Let's look at a few more (I'm on a different comp or I could quickly search my own stuff so this will be crude):

-93-94 Suns (113/112 -- higher when healthy IIRC) vs. 93/94 Knicks (100/98): In 4g Suns averaged 109 ORtg.
-1998 Utah (113) vs. 98 Spurs (99): In 9g averaged 104 oRtg.
-02-03 Dal (112/111) vs. 02-03 NJN (99/98): In 4g averaged 111 ORtg.
-2004 Dal (112) vs. NJN (98), Ind (97), Det (95), SAS (94): In 10g, averaged 108 ORtg (including torching Det in 2 games)
-2005 Pho (115) vs. 05 SAS (99): averaged 112 ORtg in 8g
-2008 Bos (99) vs. LAL (113 -- better with Gasol), Pho (113) and Utah (114): In 12g, averaged 105 Drtg
-2016 SAS (99) vs. OKC (113), GSW (115): In 14g, averaged 107 DRtg (both OKC and GSW did.)

It might warrant a larger study, but from just those examples where there are huge disparities between "historically" good offenses and defenses, the offenses are being marginalized but not stopped. The best performance of the lot was really the 08 Celtics vs. the Lakers, with a nod to the 98 Spurs too. You can see the Spurs dented OKC/GSW last year too, but the 05 Suns (especially) and Maverick teams did very well against historically good defenses. Obviously, when you don't have an historically good offenses, running into one of these defenses wreaks havoc on your offense.

If you're point is that it's harder to build great O than D I think that's a given. If you're also saying that really impacts an ATL like this where the defenses are super strong, and that kind of resets the strength of an offense, I don't agree. Most of these defenses are not better than 08 Boston. The ones that occasionally are would feast on iso-scoring teams. That said, iso/1-on-1 scoring has good value when EV is low in dwindling half-court possessions, but that's a scalable pillar as I discuss in my book.

[BasketballFan7]

.

Yes, it is much easier to build a great offense than a great defense. I don’t know that a defense superior to 08 Boston wouldn’t reset the strength of an ATG offense. Because it’s a hypothetical, nobody does. We know what Boston did versus LA. I do feel confident saying that my team has some advantages on that side of the ball over those Boston and San Antonio teams. I see that those examples, i.e. your most recent examples, essentially broke even with the ATG offenses. As for the 2003 and 2004 Dallas teams, and the 2005 Phoenix squad, I don’t know that defensive strategies had adjusted at that point to deal with the type of spacing that those offenses were playing with. Likewise, LA’s offense in 08 was dealing with Thib’s defense, which I believe is now attacked with more success because those principals spread league wide. And, as you said about the great defenses being able to feast on iso-scoring teams, ATG offenses here are able to truly capitalize on any defensive inadequacy, and those spots will lead to the defenses being shredded. Where am I going with this, as I ramble on? I think the defense here is getting marginalized due to Golden State’s nasty offense really capturing everybody’s attention at the moment for obvious reasons. That’s probably a bit unfair, because like you said about 08 Boston > most of the defenses in this league, 17 GS offense > close to every team in this league (or all). Offenses here are superior to 08 LA but inferior to 17 GS. I think strategies going in different directions are likely to be looked upon less favorably. For instance, I still haven't really heard a response about all of the other advantages I have, like the opponent running out a 7 man roster (Harden backing up 3 positions and Ratliff 2). If this was occurring during an 08 Boston type of run, perhaps the mind would be subconsciously biased toward a different direction and we have a different discussion.

[Clyde Frazier]

Just wanted to say looking at these rosters, going from 85 FGA to 90 makes a big difference (I was in an 85 FGA draft last time). These rosters are quite stacked, which makes judging even more difficult

Anyway, the first thing that sticks out to me is BasketballFan7's depth defensively on the perimeter. To be frank, it's flat out scary. It's a great combination of solid on ball / off ball defense, with the ability to trap and smother when the opportunity presents itself. This is one of the few matchups where Penny may not be as disruptive as usual. I take pause with their lack of outside shooting, but in this matchup it isn't as concerning.

OrlandoTill put together a roster of players I'd find very entertaining to watch play together. For a pretty balanced team, I could still see them getting out in transition a lot, including allen for trailing 3s. Erving's low efficiency in the 83 championship run isn't a deal breaker for me as he was still serviceable, and had an all NBA caliber reg season. BballFan's team will have to get creative defensively to keep him in check. Hakeem would also be a tough cover for Wilt, but in 67 he was really focused in all facets en route to the championship.

I ultimately have to go with BasketballFan7's team here with a slight edge. Wilt and Barkley are a pretty devastating front line on offense, and as solid as marion was defensively, I don't think he could quite handle Barkley at that point in his career. He'd just over power him. OrlandoTill doesn't have quite enough outside shooting to really tip the scales, either.

Vote: BasketballFan7

[ElGee]

Very tough one for me. I like the way BF7 has described his approach here and that, combined with his bench, is resonating with me. Erving for 40 minutes and Harden for 22 feels backwards to me -- not that 83 Erving isn't still very good, it's just the fit of the team and the matchup. And speaking of the matchup, Marion seems out of place. I agree he's not a very good shooter in 11, he's not my ideal candidate to guard Barkley, and I think Barkley also eats him up on the glass. Despite my reservations...

vote: BasketballFan7

[Statlanta]

Bump. All outside votes are welcome