PDA

View Full Version : NBA All Time Redraft - 1 v 8 (ABA (other is NBA))



Ebbs
05-28-2016, 04:03 PM
Once again this year users on the forum partook in an all time snake redraft with players over the history of the sport we all love. GMs drafted players based on their 3 season peaks and assumed 100% health. Via the draft and trades they tried to compile the best team they could. Please look at the teams posted below and decide which one would win in a 7 game series. The higher seed has home court advantage. After you've carefully thought about which team would win, please vote on the poll. If you can't please post in the thread stating which team you think wins and I can add it to the poll

Seaside
Moses Malone / Jerry Lucas
Jack Sikma / Otis Thorpe
Grant Hill / Cedric Maxwell
Jerry West / Kyle Korver
Mookie Blaylock / Damian Lillard

vs.

Ballers
Steph Curry/Steve Kerr
Joe Dumars/Byron Scott
Eddie Jones/Danny Granger
Draymond Green/Antawn Jamison
Nate Thurmond/Maurice Lucas

Quinnsanity
05-28-2016, 04:06 PM
Man, this is about as brutal a 1-8 matchup as you'll ever see. But Mookie and Jerry should contain Steph as much as possible, and that's the difference here.

mightybosstone
05-28-2016, 04:15 PM
Yeah, I gotta say that I'm not that in love with Seaside in an all-time re-draft. I get now why Valade was debating so strongly the whole "could West be an elite 3-point shooter?" argument the other day. That team is in desperate need of some floor spacing as not even peak Grant Hill was a quality perimeter shooter. Seaside obviously has an edge in sheer talent, but that Ballers team is extremely intriguing. That team would obviously play a LOT like the present day Warriors, and I'm not sure Seaside could keep up with them from a sheer scoring standpoint OR a defensive standpoint. Are Jack Sikma and Moses Malone going to be able to run the floor in transition against Curry and Green? I kinda doubt it. And that Ballers team has got some serious defensive standouts from top to bottom. Hell, Steph is the weak link, and he's going up against freakin' Mookie, who he should have no trouble guarding.

I dunno guys. I'll wait for the debate here, but I'm definitely leaning in favor of the upset on this one.

valade16
05-28-2016, 07:57 PM
I wasn't trying to argue he would be a good 3 pt shooter (even if I think he could be), I was arguing that he was a good shooter in general, which he is.

The idea that I don't have outside shooters is erroneous. Aside from Mookie's 3pt shooting, both West and Sikma were excellent outside shooters. That is 3 starters who can easily spread the floor and shoot and even Grant Hill, who was not a greta outside shooter, is not someone you can just leave open considering his ability to drive to the hoop.

Not to mention our bench has both Damian Lillard and Kyle Korver, 2 great 3pt shooters, as well as Jerry Lucas, whose outside shot was so good it was reffered to as a 'Lucas Layup'.

My team simply has far more offensive power than his.

Raidaz4Life
05-28-2016, 08:01 PM
Seaside is my favorite team in this whereas Ballers is my least favorite so.... easy match up

mightybosstone
05-28-2016, 08:22 PM
I wasn't trying to argue he would be a good 3 pt shooter (even if I think he could be), I was arguing that he was a good shooter in general, which he is.

The idea that I don't have outside shooters is erroneous. Aside from Mookie's 3pt shooting, both West and Sikma were excellent outside shooters. That is 3 starters who can easily spread the floor and shoot and even Grant Hill, who was not a greta outside shooter, is not someone you can just leave open considering his ability to drive to the hoop.

Not to mention our bench has both Damian Lillard and Kyle Korver, 2 great 3pt shooters, as well as Jerry Lucas, whose outside shot was so good it was reffered to as a 'Lucas Layup'.

My team simply has far more offensive power than his.

Being a good shooter and a good 3-point shooter are two different things. I'm not just talking about floor spacing, I'm talking about the fact that a guy who hits a 3-pointer makes an extra point than a guy who hits a mid-range shot. There's a reason why fewer mid-range jumpers are being taken in today's NBA and far more 3-pointers are being taken. That extra 3-5 feet makes a huge difference. Which two teams made the most 3-pointers in the league this season? Cleveland and Golden State.

And you may have Korver on your bench, but how many minutes is he realistically going to be getting with Hill and West in your starting five? Are you really going to run him out there and have him defend Dumars, Jones, Granger and Scott?

Overall, I'm not doubting that you have more talent on your roster. Your team has the superior talent, but their roster is just built a little better as an actual team with an offensive gameplan. And the fact that they have the best overall offensive player in this series playing in a system he feels comfortable with and a fellow Warriors running mate has to account for something. That roster is like the current Warriors team (which just broke the single-season win mark) on steroids with a superior defense.

Ebbs
05-29-2016, 07:42 AM
I thought this would be closer, Curry name value not getting it done.

Shammyguy3
05-29-2016, 09:39 AM
Can't vote on poll because I'm in my phone. I vote seaside

valade16
05-29-2016, 10:10 AM
Being a good shooter and a good 3-point shooter are two different things. I'm not just talking about floor spacing, I'm talking about the fact that a guy who hits a 3-pointer makes an extra point than a guy who hits a mid-range shot. There's a reason why fewer mid-range jumpers are being taken in today's NBA and far more 3-pointers are being taken. That extra 3-5 feet makes a huge difference. Which two teams made the most 3-pointers in the league this season? Cleveland and Golden State.

And you may have Korver on your bench, but how many minutes is he realistically going to be getting with Hill and West in your starting five? Are you really going to run him out there and have him defend Dumars, Jones, Granger and Scott?

Overall, I'm not doubting that you have more talent on your roster. Your team has the superior talent, but their roster is just built a little better as an actual team with an offensive gameplan. And the fact that they have the best overall offensive player in this series playing in a system he feels comfortable with and a fellow Warriors running mate has to account for something. That roster is like the current Warriors team (which just broke the single-season win mark) on steroids with a superior defense.

I don't want to make it seem like his team sucks, because you're right, it is a very well put together team and I thought it was better than its ranking. But it's not like my team is lacking in offensive potential. Yes he has the best offensive player in Curry, but I easily have the next best 3 (West, Moses and Hill), my team just has way more offensive talent. His guys get a boost from the system he's in and the familiarity Curry and Dray have with it, but what happens when Steph is on the bench? You talk about Korver struggling to defend, well imagine Steve Kerr tryibg to defend anyone let alone be their primary facilitator. Once Steph is out their entire offensive system is non-existent.

You're right that a 3 is worth one more point than a 2, and that increases the efficiency at which you can score the basketball. But making 3's doesn't matter if it doesn't provide that efficiency advantage. West's 3 year peak (and career) is more efficient than Dumars and just as efficient as Eddie Jones. So their ability to hit the 3 increasing their efficiency literally doesn't matter because Jerry West's midrange and ability to score is just as efficient. And that was before the 3pt line. ANY 3's West may have made (whether you think it was 10 or 100), only increases his efficiency.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-30-2016, 03:32 AM
Understand why Baller's not arguing since he's basically lost. But I might've been able to be swayed to vote for him (like Sadds matchup). It's clear as day Seaside has way more talent but Baller's team seems really well constructed. Seems to fit together way better than Seaside, which seems like it's just awesome talent thrown together. Nothing wrong with that but I would be interested in knowing how Seaside plans to play. What's the gameplan?

Also, Seaside does have some good shooters on the bench to the point that they could mix and match their bench players with their superior talent to get more spacing.

KnicksorBust
05-30-2016, 09:43 AM
Understand why Baller's not arguing since he's basically lost. But I might've been able to be swayed to vote for him (like Sadds matchup). It's clear as day Seaside has way more talent but Baller's team seems really well constructed. Seems to fit together way better than Seaside, which seems like it's just awesome talent thrown together. Nothing wrong with that but I would be interested in knowing how Seaside plans to play. What's the gameplan?

Also, Seaside does have some good shooters on the bench to the point that they could mix and match their bench players with their superior talent to get more spacing.

Bingo. I actually liked when Baller's team had Reggie Miller and Karl Malone. I thought that would be a fun combo to bring to the playoffs. Still not a big fan of Seaside moving forward but the talent discrepancy is clearly in their favor even more than Montreal. I'd be curious to see how this voting would have gone a month ago or a month into the future (if the Warriors complete the comeback and win another title).

Lakers + Giants
05-30-2016, 07:10 PM
While I don't like the fit, I think seaside wins this one with sheer talent alone.

valade16
05-30-2016, 07:32 PM
Since it appears I've won this matchup I'm saving my refutation of the "doesn't fit" argument for the next round.