PDA

View Full Version : NBA No MVP All-Time Redraft Semi-Finals. Team Ebbs vs. Azkaban Dementors



valade16
10-02-2017, 11:55 AM
Members of the PSD Community came together and participated in an All-Time NBA Redraft. They drafted, traded and signed all time players to create the best team possible. This is the 1st Round of the playoffs.

Special stipulations for this game included: No NBA or ABA MVP winners eligible. Each team had to start (and play 24 minutes) 2 players who did not play a single game after 1990. Additionally, each player is judged on the a single season/the best season of their career, as selected by the GM.

Please look at the teams and vote for which team you think would win in a 7 game series.

Team Ebbs has home court advantage for the series:

Team Ebbs:

PG: Clyde Frazier: 1971-72. All-NBA 1st, All-Defense 1st.
SG: Gail Goodrich: 1971-72. All-Star, Champion.
SF: Paul George: 2013-14. All-NBA 3rd, All-Defense 1st.
PF: Tom Chambers: 1989-90. All-NBA 2nd.
C: Alonzo Mourning: 1998-99. DPOY, MVP runner up, All-NBA 1st, All-Defense 1st.

Arvydas Sabonis 1995-96
Michael Redd 2005-06
Maurice Cheeks 1985-86
Kiki Vandeweghe 1983-84
Josh Smith 2009-10

vs.

Azkaban Dementors:

G: Mark Price (36) - Kirk Hinrich (6) - Brandon Roy (6)
G: Scottie Pippen (33) - Brandon Roy (12) - Dan Majerle (3)
F: Grant Hill (28) - Dan Majerle (15) - Scottie Pippen (5)
F: Dan Roundfield (24) - Carlos Boozer (18) - Grant Hill (6)
C: Walt Bellamy (30) - Vlade Divac (18)

valade16
10-02-2017, 05:16 PM
Shammy matches up surprisingly well here if you buy Bellamy going toe to toe with Zo. I'll wait to hear arguments but it's a close matchup.

GREATNESS ONE
10-02-2017, 09:08 PM
Ebbs matches up surprisingly well here if you buy Zo going toe to toe with Bellamy. I'll wait to hear arguments but it's a close matchup.

Shammyguy3
10-02-2017, 10:20 PM
Why Azkaban wins:

1) Scottie Pippen is the best player on the court. When Jordan retired, the Bulls' were still their usual selves with Pippen not only increasing his usage rate, but he also increased his efficiency across the board without losing a step defensively. Now I'm not sure who will guard him. Ebbs' team has two great defenders in Frazier and George, but Frazier is a good 4-5 inches smaller than Scottie Pippen. So I suspect Paul George to guard Scottie. But, a player in today's game in Kawhi Leonard has had success against George in head to head matchups. It's a very small sample, but over the last 2 years they've played H2H three times and Leonard has averaged 28.7ppg 7.7rpg and 2.3apg. Leonard's average output the last two years is 23.4ppg 6.3rpg 3.1apg on a 55.2efg%, so he clearly wasn't slowed down significantly.

When you factor in Pippen's ability to make a pass in the half-court, I think it's a difficult assignment.




2) Grant Hill is the #2 option offensively for Azkaban. This kind of ties in with point #1 above. So, if Paul George is guarding Scottie Pippen, then who is gonna guard Grant Hill? He himself was an alpha scorer in his prime. Heck, Ebbs agreed with that in the last round:


Saying Pippen isn't an alpha when the Bulls barely missed a step post-Jordan feels wack lol.

Also, Grant Hill in a one year game is definitely an alpha.

So, is Ebbs' team relying on Gail Goodrich to guard Grant Hill, or will they use Walt Frazier? If they use Frazier, then that's simply a larger height and weight difference he will have to make up for. If they use Gail Goodrich, then I have a heard time not seeing Hill averaging 30ppg in this series. Why? Well, Goodrich was a poor defender. Since DBPM has been calculated started in the '74 season, he never had a season close to a + DBPM. His best season was -1.9 actually.




3) Mark Price is pretty damn close to Steve Nash offensively. Mark Price versus Steve Nash per36 minutes:

Price over a 3 year span posted 20.5/9.0 while shooting 48.3% from the field, 40.1% from deep taking 4 a game, had a 120 ORtg, a 60.1ts%, a 39.4ast% and 14.3tov%, a 3.17 ast/tov ratio, and a 22.5 PER.

Nash over a 3 year span posted 18.2/11.5 while shooting 51.6% from the field, 44.3% from deep taking 4 a game, had a 123 ORtg, a 63.1ts%, a 47.8ast%, and a 20.1tov%, a 3.18 ast/tov ratio, and a 23.0 PER


So, I think Price running an offense with two juggernaut slashers that are also fantastic finishers and passers will be difficult for Ebbs' team to defend. And when you factor in Mark Price gets a huge upgrade in the #1 and #2 options offensively to set up (going from Brad Daugherty and Larry Nance to Scottie Pippen and Grant Hill), I don't see why he wouldn't perform as well as Steve Nash had his best years.

I plan to have Price/Pippen/Hill pick & rolls, to take advantage of whoever Goodrich is guarding. Now Mark Price is arguably the 3rd or 4th best player on my team. So, he gets to focus on a run & gun system the way Nash was able to in Phoenix. He will push the ball in transition as much as possible to try and mitigate Alonzo Mourning in the game.





4) Walt Bellamy held his own against all-time greats. Walt Bellamy has played against Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld, and others. And he's done very well.


Walt Bellamy through a five year stretched averaged 25.5ppg 16.0rpg 2.5apg shooting nearly 52% from the field. His best statistical season, he averaged 31.6ppg 19.0rpg 2.7apg.

The biggest competition for Walt Bellamy ever was Wilt Chamberlain, arguably the best scorer ever, and Bill Russell, arguably the best defender ever. Bellamy played Wilt 90 games against each other in the regular season, and 10 in the playoffs. And guess what? Wilt was Wilt, of course. But Wilt didn't embarrass him anymore than Wilt didn't embarrass Bill Russell, the best defensive player ever. So, Mourning won't necessarily take advantage of a poor defensive center, because Bellamy isn't one of those.

Wilt against Walt: 31.2ppg (90 total games)
Wilt against Russell: 29.9ppg (94 total games)

Now Walt Bellamy played 75 games against Bill Russell. Of those 75 games, we have 35 box-scores that tallied both FGA and FGM for Bellamy against Russell. Here are those numbers:

He shot 281/579 or 48.5% while shooting 389/599 or 64.9% from the charity stripe. That's good for a true shooting percentage of 56.4%. That's pretty darn good against the greatest defensive center ever.

So, if Walt Bellamy can play against Bill Russell and post those efficiency numbers, then he should be able to play against Alonzo Mourning. And what will make it tougher on Mourning, is that he will have to worry about Hill/Pippen slashing. This is tough because of how great a passer Bellamy was. He averaged nearly 3 assists a game. So it isn't like the ball is gonna die once it enters the post.

Shammyguy3
10-02-2017, 10:36 PM
5) Dan Roundfield is a far better player than Tom Chambers. To remind everyone about how good Dan Roundfield is:

Dan Roundfield was an elite two-way player who would guard the better Forward. He was 5x All NBA Defense and would guard perimeter players as well as post players... granted, he was an even better post defender. Guarding Tom Chambers, who is probably a 4th option in this matchup, wouldn't be challenging. This allows him to stop penetration by Frazier/Goodrich/George and even double up on Mourning if needed.

Dan Roundfield is one of the best well-rounded 4s to ever play the game. Most people aren't aware of the fact he was a 19 ppg/11 rpg/3 ast/2 blks and 5x All Defense PF. He played in the late 70's all the way through the mid-to-late 80's. Furthermore, his game would transition perfectly to today's game because he was strong and quick enough to guard SF/PF/C (depending on the center - here, Walt Bellamy will be able to handle Mourning, and the few times he needs help Roundfield can provide it).

At his peak, Dan Roundfield was a poor man's Duncan. They both had post games, both could shoot midrange, both were amazing lock down defenders (with Duncan guarding centers better than small forwards, vice versa for Dan due to his quickness). Both were good passers, both were unselfish team-first players. Roundfield is a great fit next to the rest of the unselfish players that can pass the ball on Azkaban's roster.


Here's a peak at how great his defense was, as evidenced by the company he shares on this All-Defensive 1st team from the 82-83 season:

Dennis Johnson / Cheeks
Sidney Moncrief
Bobby Jones
Dan Roundfield
Moses Malone


Larry Bird has accredited 2 people for giving him the most fits… Michael Cooper (in spite of the size difference) and Dan “freaking” Roundfield. Due to Roundfields athletic ability and strength, he was quick enough to guard Bird on the perimeter and in the post. Now, as much as Chambers was a good offensive player, he is NO Larry Bird! If Roundfield gave Bird fits, he will be a nightmare for Chambers.

Roundfield did not shoot 3 pointers, but he was good from beyond the elbows a la Tim Duncan, and will be able to partake in pick & pops and touch passes off of Mark Price to slashers Pippen and Hill. Chambers guarding Roundfield is a matchup we can exploit.

Let's not forget previous users on this site bringing up how Dan Roundfield was a better offensive player than Elvin Hayes: Hayes' career high ts% was 54.4% accompanied by a 19.8 PER, a 1.9 OBPM, and 6.6 OWS. Roundfield has a career high ts% of 57.5% accompanied by a 20.7 PER, a 2.5 OBPM, and 4.2 OWS.

So we need to give respect to Roundfield as an offensive player, not just a 5x All-NBA defender (3 of which were 1st team). He's perhaps just as important of an X-factor as other all-time glue guys like Rasheed Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Manu Ginobili, and so forth.

6) I have 4 two-way players, Ebbs has 3 two-way players. When it comes to these all-time games, all-around players matter. And the only defensive liability I have is Mark Price, playing perhaps the least important defensive position. Ebbs has two defensive liabilities in Gail Goodrich and Tom Chambers. I have zero offensive liabilities, and Ebbs also has zero offensive liabilities.

7) Spacing. Neither team has phenomenal spacing, but let's compare the two teams:

Azkaban's 4 best shooters
1993 Mark Price: 41.6 3pt% on 3.9 attempts a game
2009 Brandon Roy: 37.7% from deep on 4.2 attempts a game
1993 Dan Majerle: 38.1% from deep on 5.3 attempts a game
2007 Kirk Hinrich: 41.5% from deep on 4.2 attempts a game


Ebbs' 4 best shooters
2017 Paul George - 39.3% from three on 6.6 attempts a game
2007 Michael Redd - 38.2% from three on 5.8 attempts a game
1987 Kiki Vandeweghe - 48.1% from three on 1.0 attempts a game
1987 Tom Chambers - 37.2% from three on 1.8 attempts a game


I don't see a huge edge on either side here. I will say though, that Dan Roundfield's ability to guard small forwards and stretch 4s (i.e. Larry Bird) mitigates Tom Chambers as a stretch 4.

Dan Roundfield guarding Larry Bird
They played against each other 48 times including playoffs. We have box scores for 38 of those games for Larry Bird's field goals (of which only 21 have tallied 3PM and 3PA for Bird, which is why that number is so low). This is how Bird faired against Dan Roundfield:

Field Goals Made: 345
Field Goal Attempts: 751
Field Goal Percentage: 45.9%
3 pointers Made: 9
3 point Attempts: 34
3 point Percentage: 26.4%
Free Throws Made: 249
Free Throw Attempts: 284
Free Throw Percentage: 87.7%
Efg%: 48.2%
Ts%: 54.1%



Bird's career averages: 51.4% efg% and 56.4ts%

So you can see Roundfield did better than most could against one of the best scorers we've ever seen.

Here's the link to the game box scores on basketbal-reference: https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1_hint=Larry+Bird&player_id1_select=Larry+Bird&player_id1=birdla01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Dan+Roundfield&player_id2_select=Dan+Roundfield&player_id2=roundda01&idx=players

kdspurman
10-03-2017, 11:00 AM
Shammy matches up surprisingly well here if you buy Bellamy going toe to toe with Zo. I'll wait to hear arguments but it's a close matchup.

Same here

Ebbs
10-03-2017, 11:28 AM
Hey guys, sorry didn't realise these were up. I'll get an argument up today.,

mightybosstone
10-03-2017, 05:47 PM
Shammy matches up surprisingly well here if you buy Bellamy going toe to toe with Zo. I'll wait to hear arguments but it's a close matchup.

I don't.

Ebbs' team in 6. It's a testament to Shammy's ability to argue his case that he's gotten this far, but I didn't buy the Roundfield/Bellamy front court two rounds ago, and I definitely don't buy it going up against a front court with Alonzo Mourning.

Shammyguy3
10-03-2017, 06:33 PM
I don't.

Ebbs' team in 6. It's a testament to Shammy's ability to argue his case that he's gotten this far, but I didn't buy the Roundfield/Bellamy front court two rounds ago, and I definitely don't buy it going up against a front court with Alonzo Mourning.

So you completely ignore Bellamy's production against Wilt Chamberlain amd Bill Russell? Lol, ok then

And you buy Goodrich and Chambers in this? Pretty lame if you ask me

mightybosstone
10-03-2017, 06:58 PM
So you completely ignore Bellamy's production against Wilt Chamberlain amd Bill Russell? Lol, ok then

And you buy Goodrich and Chambers in this? Pretty lame if you ask me

I think it's easy to call Wilt and Russell elite defenders against competition in the 60s. I think if Bill Russell played today, we might not be so quick to call him the greatest defensive center of all-time. Also, you pulled box scores for less than half of their head-to-head matchups, so it's not exactly a totally fair sample size. So, no, I don't buy that Bellamy would perform at the same level against Zo over a 7-game series.

And against Roundfield? Sure I'd buy Chambers. Roundfield was a damn fine defender, but he's no offensive juggernaut. And with Roundfield chasing Chambers around the perimeter, I think that significantly hurts Roundfield's impact in this series. I'm not a fan of Goodrich in this game, but considering you'll have to put Price on him (a notoriously atrocious defender), I'd almost consider that a wash.

For me, though, I just wasn't ever as high on your squad as other GMs were. It's nothing personal, man. In a game this close, so much of our opinions on teams are based on preference and the small, minute differences between teams. I was just always lukewarm on your front court and don't really love that your No. 1 offensive weapon is Grant Hill, who is kind of a so-so No. 1 in this game for me.

Shammyguy3
10-03-2017, 08:58 PM
I think it's easy to call Wilt and Russell elite defenders against competition in the 60s. I think if Bill Russell played today, we might not be so quick to call him the greatest defensive center of all-time. Also, you pulled box scores for less than half of their head-to-head matchups, so it's not exactly a totally fair sample size. So, no, I don't buy that Bellamy would perform at the same level against Zo over a 7-game series.

So a 35-game sample size isn't enough to judge how two players play against each other? How many is enough? 78?

Ben Wallace versus Shaq = 23 regular season games, 22 post-season games.

Hakeem versus David Robinson = 42 regular season games, 6 post-season games.

Gary Payton versus Michael Jordan = 15 regular season games, 6 post-season games.


The bolded - there is no way around that. But how can we assume that players just as glorified and actually to a higher degree than Zo defensively/offensively are infinitely worse where it negates a hypothetical matchup. You pretty much are saying, well these guys get no credit. If Russell played today, maybe he would actually be considered even better. Who knows? I just don't like that you disregard the numbers completely. Because I know if I had Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell, you wouldn't be making such a statement about Zo being a huge advantage. So why can't Bellamy get similar due credit?


And against Roundfield? Sure I'd buy Chambers. Roundfield was a damn fine defender, but he's no offensive juggernaut. And with Roundfield chasing Chambers around the perimeter, I think that significantly hurts Roundfield's impact in this series. I'm not a fan of Goodrich in this game, but considering you'll have to put Price on him (a notoriously atrocious defender), I'd almost consider that a wash.

Roundfield versus Chambers head to head games:

Chambers averaged: 15.3ppg 4.9rpg 2.3apg 2.4tov on 42.0% shooting
Roundfield averaged: 14.8ppg 10.3rpg 2.7apg 2.6tov on 46.7% shooting.


Roundfield's impact will be significant considering he will make Chambers non-significant. Look at those matchups. He outplays him. In every category.


Look at the rebounding my team will have against Ebbs' team. Pippen >> Goodrich; Hill >> George; Roundfield >> Chambers. I don't think Alonzo Mourning will make up for that difference.


For me, though, I just wasn't ever as high on your squad as other GMs were. It's nothing personal, man. In a game this close, so much of our opinions on teams are based on preference and the small, minute differences between teams. I was just always lukewarm on your front court and don't really love that your No. 1 offensive weapon is Grant Hill, who is kind of a so-so No. 1 in this game for me.

Scottie Pippen and Grant Hill are better #1s than Paul Pierce was, and you ranked your team ahead of mine :shrug: they're definitely not worse #1s than Frazier and Mourning. THey're pretty significantly better actually in my opinion.



Last point - Walt Frazier was beating up on the early 70s NBA - a notoriously weak time period for the NBA. So why does Bellamy get no credit going up aginst Wilt/Kareem/Russell/Unseld but Frazier gets a pass? :eyebrow:

valade16
10-03-2017, 09:18 PM
Bellamy averaged 18.6 PPG and 12.8 RPG on 56.7 TS% in 1972 and 16.1 PPG and 13.0 RPG on 52.7 TS% in 1973.
That is smack dab in the middle of Frazier's peak.

If Frazier can get credit why shouldn't Bellamy?

Shammyguy3
10-03-2017, 09:47 PM
Bellamy averaged 18.6 PPG and 12.8 RPG on 56.7 TS% in 1972 and 16.1 PPG and 13.0 RPG on 52.7 TS% in 1973.
That is smack dab in the middle of Frazier's peak.

If Frazier can get credit why shouldn't Bellamy?


Thank you!

mightybosstone
10-04-2017, 10:33 AM
So a 35-game sample size isn't enough to judge how two players play against each other? How many is enough? 78?

Ben Wallace versus Shaq = 23 regular season games, 22 post-season games.

Hakeem versus David Robinson = 42 regular season games, 6 post-season games.

Gary Payton versus Michael Jordan = 15 regular season games, 6 post-season games.
It's not just that it's a 35-game sample size, it's that it's a 35-game sample size out of more than 70 games they played in total over their careers. Also, you're only giving me one statistic to go off of. TS% is nice, but that's not exactly a great all-encompassing statistic to judge how he performed. And you kind of conveniently left off one important statistic: win-loss. In their 71 games against each other, Walt's teams were 10-61 against Russell.

Obviously you can't blame one player for a loss on a team of many, but that doesn't exactly bode well for Walt and lead me to believe the guy didn't exactly play a winning brand of basketball. His postseason resume kind of backs that up as he only cracked the second round of the playoffs twice in a 15-year career despite their being substantially fewer teams in the league.


The bolded - there is no way around that. But how can we assume that players just as glorified and actually to a higher degree than Zo defensively/offensively are infinitely worse where it negates a hypothetical matchup. You pretty much are saying, well these guys get no credit. If Russell played today, maybe he would actually be considered even better. Who knows? I just don't like that you disregard the numbers completely. Because I know if I had Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell, you wouldn't be making such a statement about Zo being a huge advantage. So why can't Bellamy get similar due credit?
I'm not completely disregarding the numbers or saying Bellamy gets zero credit. At no point did I say that. I'm saying that this is a game between hypothetical teams with stacked historically great players, and it's very, very hard to judge how a second tier star from the 60s would perform against one of the best defensive centers in an era where centers were a hell of a lot more skilled and talented.

Does Bellamy get some credit? Sure. But in a game like this, you and I both know that he's easily among the 5-10 worst starting centers in the game. And I'm not just going to completely throw out that fact because of a 35-game sample size against a single player from half a century ago.


Roundfield versus Chambers head to head games:

Chambers averaged: 15.3ppg 4.9rpg 2.3apg 2.4tov on 42.0% shooting
Roundfield averaged: 14.8ppg 10.3rpg 2.7apg 2.6tov on 46.7% shooting.
That's an 8-game sample size from really early in Chambers' career. I wouldn't exactly call that reliable. And Chambers didn't become a 3-point threat until the following season after these matchups in 86-87.


Look at the rebounding my team will have against Ebbs' team. Pippen >> Goodrich; Hill >> George; Roundfield >> Chambers. I don't think Alonzo Mourning will make up for that difference.
He's still got you beat at two positions with Frazier and Zo. I'd give you the edge on the glass, but it's not substantial enough for me to make a difference over a 7-game series.


Scottie Pippen and Grant Hill are better #1s than Paul Pierce was, and you ranked your team ahead of mine :shrug: they're definitely not worse #1s than Frazier and Mourning. THey're pretty significantly better actually in my opinion.
Pippen was absolutely not a more dangerous scoring threat than Pierce at his peak. That's absurd. And Hill had one season where he was on Pierce's level. That's it. And I guess in a game where we're supposed to take the 1-year peak, that's fine. But I definitely wouldn't put Hill next to Pierce overall, especially when you factor in Pierce's postseason performance throughout his career.


Last point - Walt Frazier was beating up on the early 70s NBA - a notoriously weak time period for the NBA. So why does Bellamy get no credit going up aginst Wilt/Kareem/Russell/Unseld but Frazier gets a pass? :eyebrow:
The league was far more talented in 1970 than it was in 1960 because of the large influx of black players over the 60s. That's not debatable. Also, Frazier was a 7-time All-Star who was All-NBA and All-Defensive basically every year of his prime, was a two-time champion and whose numbers are simply far more impressive.

We can debate all day, but I'm not going to change my mind on this, personally. I voted Ebbs' first overall because I really liked the makeup of his team, and I think he matches up well against you. Period. Don't take it personal. You're still winning and you're still probably going to win, but I just think his team is better.

KnicksorBust
10-04-2017, 11:20 AM
Why Azkaban wins:

1) Scottie Pippen is the best player on the court. When Jordan retired, the Bulls' were still their usual selves with Pippen not only increasing his usage rate, but he also increased his efficiency across the board without losing a step defensively. Now I'm not sure who will guard him. Ebbs' team has two great defenders in Frazier and George, but Frazier is a good 4-5 inches smaller than Scottie Pippen. So I suspect Paul George to guard Scottie. But, a player in today's game in Kawhi Leonard has had success against George in head to head matchups. It's a very small sample, but over the last 2 years they've played H2H three times and Leonard has averaged 28.7ppg 7.7rpg and 2.3apg. Leonard's average output the last two years is 23.4ppg 6.3rpg 3.1apg on a 55.2efg%, so he clearly wasn't slowed down significantly.

When you factor in Pippen's ability to make a pass in the half-court, I think it's a difficult assignment.




2) Grant Hill is the #2 option offensively for Azkaban. This kind of ties in with point #1 above. So, if Paul George is guarding Scottie Pippen, then who is gonna guard Grant Hill? He himself was an alpha scorer in his prime. Heck, Ebbs agreed with that in the last round:



So, is Ebbs' team relying on Gail Goodrich to guard Grant Hill, or will they use Walt Frazier? If they use Frazier, then that's simply a larger height and weight difference he will have to make up for. If they use Gail Goodrich, then I have a heard time not seeing Hill averaging 30ppg in this series. Why? Well, Goodrich was a poor defender. Since DBPM has been calculated started in the '74 season, he never had a season close to a + DBPM. His best season was -1.9 actually.




3) Mark Price is pretty damn close to Steve Nash offensively. Mark Price versus Steve Nash per36 minutes:

Price over a 3 year span posted 20.5/9.0 while shooting 48.3% from the field, 40.1% from deep taking 4 a game, had a 120 ORtg, a 60.1ts%, a 39.4ast% and 14.3tov%, a 3.17 ast/tov ratio, and a 22.5 PER.

Nash over a 3 year span posted 18.2/11.5 while shooting 51.6% from the field, 44.3% from deep taking 4 a game, had a 123 ORtg, a 63.1ts%, a 47.8ast%, and a 20.1tov%, a 3.18 ast/tov ratio, and a 23.0 PER


So, I think Price running an offense with two juggernaut slashers that are also fantastic finishers and passers will be difficult for Ebbs' team to defend. And when you factor in Mark Price gets a huge upgrade in the #1 and #2 options offensively to set up (going from Brad Daugherty and Larry Nance to Scottie Pippen and Grant Hill), I don't see why he wouldn't perform as well as Steve Nash had his best years.

I plan to have Price/Pippen/Hill pick & rolls, to take advantage of whoever Goodrich is guarding. Now Mark Price is arguably the 3rd or 4th best player on my team. So, he gets to focus on a run & gun system the way Nash was able to in Phoenix. He will push the ball in transition as much as possible to try and mitigate Alonzo Mourning in the game.





4) Walt Bellamy held his own against all-time greats. Walt Bellamy has played against Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld, and others. And he's done very well.


Walt Bellamy through a five year stretched averaged 25.5ppg 16.0rpg 2.5apg shooting nearly 52% from the field. His best statistical season, he averaged 31.6ppg 19.0rpg 2.7apg.

The biggest competition for Walt Bellamy ever was Wilt Chamberlain, arguably the best scorer ever, and Bill Russell, arguably the best defender ever. Bellamy played Wilt 90 games against each other in the regular season, and 10 in the playoffs. And guess what? Wilt was Wilt, of course. But Wilt didn't embarrass him anymore than Wilt didn't embarrass Bill Russell, the best defensive player ever. So, Mourning won't necessarily take advantage of a poor defensive center, because Bellamy isn't one of those.

Wilt against Walt: 31.2ppg (90 total games)
Wilt against Russell: 29.9ppg (94 total games)

Now Walt Bellamy played 75 games against Bill Russell. Of those 75 games, we have 35 box-scores that tallied both FGA and FGM for Bellamy against Russell. Here are those numbers:

He shot 281/579 or 48.5% while shooting 389/599 or 64.9% from the charity stripe. That's good for a true shooting percentage of 56.4%. That's pretty darn good against the greatest defensive center ever.

So, if Walt Bellamy can play against Bill Russell and post those efficiency numbers, then he should be able to play against Alonzo Mourning. And what will make it tougher on Mourning, is that he will have to worry about Hill/Pippen slashing. This is tough because of how great a passer Bellamy was. He averaged nearly 3 assists a game. So it isn't like the ball is gonna die once it enters the post.


5) Dan Roundfield is a far better player than Tom Chambers. To remind everyone about how good Dan Roundfield is:

Dan Roundfield was an elite two-way player who would guard the better Forward. He was 5x All NBA Defense and would guard perimeter players as well as post players... granted, he was an even better post defender. Guarding Tom Chambers, who is probably a 4th option in this matchup, wouldn't be challenging. This allows him to stop penetration by Frazier/Goodrich/George and even double up on Mourning if needed.

Dan Roundfield is one of the best well-rounded 4s to ever play the game. Most people aren't aware of the fact he was a 19 ppg/11 rpg/3 ast/2 blks and 5x All Defense PF. He played in the late 70's all the way through the mid-to-late 80's. Furthermore, his game would transition perfectly to today's game because he was strong and quick enough to guard SF/PF/C (depending on the center - here, Walt Bellamy will be able to handle Mourning, and the few times he needs help Roundfield can provide it).

At his peak, Dan Roundfield was a poor man's Duncan. They both had post games, both could shoot midrange, both were amazing lock down defenders (with Duncan guarding centers better than small forwards, vice versa for Dan due to his quickness). Both were good passers, both were unselfish team-first players. Roundfield is a great fit next to the rest of the unselfish players that can pass the ball on Azkaban's roster.


Here's a peak at how great his defense was, as evidenced by the company he shares on this All-Defensive 1st team from the 82-83 season:

Dennis Johnson / Cheeks
Sidney Moncrief
Bobby Jones
Dan Roundfield
Moses Malone


Larry Bird has accredited 2 people for giving him the most fits… Michael Cooper (in spite of the size difference) and Dan “freaking” Roundfield. Due to Roundfields athletic ability and strength, he was quick enough to guard Bird on the perimeter and in the post. Now, as much as Chambers was a good offensive player, he is NO Larry Bird! If Roundfield gave Bird fits, he will be a nightmare for Chambers.

Roundfield did not shoot 3 pointers, but he was good from beyond the elbows a la Tim Duncan, and will be able to partake in pick & pops and touch passes off of Mark Price to slashers Pippen and Hill. Chambers guarding Roundfield is a matchup we can exploit.

Let's not forget previous users on this site bringing up how Dan Roundfield was a better offensive player than Elvin Hayes: Hayes' career high ts% was 54.4% accompanied by a 19.8 PER, a 1.9 OBPM, and 6.6 OWS. Roundfield has a career high ts% of 57.5% accompanied by a 20.7 PER, a 2.5 OBPM, and 4.2 OWS.

So we need to give respect to Roundfield as an offensive player, not just a 5x All-NBA defender (3 of which were 1st team). He's perhaps just as important of an X-factor as other all-time glue guys like Rasheed Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Manu Ginobili, and so forth.

6) I have 4 two-way players, Ebbs has 3 two-way players. When it comes to these all-time games, all-around players matter. And the only defensive liability I have is Mark Price, playing perhaps the least important defensive position. Ebbs has two defensive liabilities in Gail Goodrich and Tom Chambers. I have zero offensive liabilities, and Ebbs also has zero offensive liabilities.

7) Spacing. Neither team has phenomenal spacing, but let's compare the two teams:

Azkaban's 4 best shooters
1993 Mark Price: 41.6 3pt% on 3.9 attempts a game
2009 Brandon Roy: 37.7% from deep on 4.2 attempts a game
1993 Dan Majerle: 38.1% from deep on 5.3 attempts a game
2007 Kirk Hinrich: 41.5% from deep on 4.2 attempts a game


Ebbs' 4 best shooters
2017 Paul George - 39.3% from three on 6.6 attempts a game
2007 Michael Redd - 38.2% from three on 5.8 attempts a game
1987 Kiki Vandeweghe - 48.1% from three on 1.0 attempts a game
1987 Tom Chambers - 37.2% from three on 1.8 attempts a game


I don't see a huge edge on either side here. I will say though, that Dan Roundfield's ability to guard small forwards and stretch 4s (i.e. Larry Bird) mitigates Tom Chambers as a stretch 4.

Dan Roundfield guarding Larry Bird
They played against each other 48 times including playoffs. We have box scores for 38 of those games for Larry Bird's field goals (of which only 21 have tallied 3PM and 3PA for Bird, which is why that number is so low). This is how Bird faired against Dan Roundfield:

Field Goals Made: 345
Field Goal Attempts: 751
Field Goal Percentage: 45.9%
3 pointers Made: 9
3 point Attempts: 34
3 point Percentage: 26.4%
Free Throws Made: 249
Free Throw Attempts: 284
Free Throw Percentage: 87.7%
Efg%: 48.2%
Ts%: 54.1%



Bird's career averages: 51.4% efg% and 56.4ts%

So you can see Roundfield did better than most could against one of the best scorers we've ever seen.

Here's the link to the game box scores on basketbal-reference: https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1_hint=Larry+Bird&player_id1_select=Larry+Bird&player_id1=birdla01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Dan+Roundfield&player_id2_select=Dan+Roundfield&player_id2=roundda01&idx=players

Compelling argument.

KnicksorBust
10-04-2017, 11:24 AM
Leaning Azkaban. I am curious what Ebbs has to say.

Shammyguy3
10-04-2017, 12:45 PM
It's not just that it's a 35-game sample size, it's that it's a 35-game sample size out of more than 70 games they played in total over their careers. Also, you're only giving me one statistic to go off of. TS% is nice, but that's not exactly a great all-encompassing statistic to judge how he performed. And you kind of conveniently left off one important statistic: win-loss. In their 71 games against each other, Walt's teams were 10-61 against Russell.

We only have 35 games to go off of. We don't have all of them. So because we are missing data, you assume the data we have is completely worthless. That's stupid.

It isn't an all-encompassing stat, no. But it gives you an idea. We don't have much more to go off of. But, I bet if his ts% was ****** that you would then claim it has merit.

The bolded is utterly ridiculous. We all know how stacked Russell's teams were.



Obviously you can't blame one player for a loss on a team of many, but that doesn't exactly bode well for Walt and lead me to believe the guy didn't exactly play a winning brand of basketball. His postseason resume kind of backs that up as he only cracked the second round of the playoffs twice in a 15-year career despite their being substantially fewer teams in the league.

So is Tracy McGrady a lesser player than Manu Ginobili because of their post-seasons, irrespective of the rosters they were on?




I'm not completely disregarding the numbers or saying Bellamy gets zero credit. At no point did I say that. I'm saying that this is a game between hypothetical teams with stacked historically great players, and it's very, very hard to judge how a second tier star from the 60s would perform against one of the best defensive centers in an era where centers were a hell of a lot more skilled and talented.

Does Bellamy get some credit? Sure. But in a game like this, you and I both know that he's easily among the 5-10 worst starting centers in the game. And I'm not just going to completely throw out that fact because of a 35-game sample size against a single player from half a century ago.

Bellamy is not a worse starter than Joakim Noah, Zelmo Beaty, Maurice Lucas, Dan Issel, Lovellette, Truck Robinson, George Mikan, Bob Love

And a few others who are in a similar tier as him include Gasol, Yao Ming, in my opinion. So you are wrong on that assertion as well.



That's an 8-game sample size from really early in Chambers' career. I wouldn't exactly call that reliable. And Chambers didn't become a 3-point threat until the following season after these matchups in 86-87.

He's still got you beat at two positions with Frazier and Zo. I'd give you the edge on the glass, but it's not substantial enough for me to make a difference over a 7-game series.

SO I have him beat at 3 positions, have the best player in the series in Pippen, and have a ton of other advantages.



Pippen was absolutely not a more dangerous scoring threat than Pierce at his peak. That's absurd. And Hill had one season where he was on Pierce's level. That's it. And I guess in a game where we're supposed to take the 1-year peak, that's fine. But I definitely wouldn't put Hill next to Pierce overall, especially when you factor in Pierce's postseason performance throughout his career.

I didn't know a #1 option was simply a scorer, but a facilitator and playmaker...


[/quote]The league was far more talented in 1970 than it was in 1960 because of the large influx of black players over the 60s. That's not debatable. Also, Frazier was a 7-time All-Star who was All-NBA and All-Defensive basically every year of his prime, was a two-time champion and whose numbers are simply far more impressive.

We can debate all day, but I'm not going to change my mind on this, personally. I voted Ebbs' first overall because I really liked the makeup of his team, and I think he matches up well against you. Period. Don't take it personal. You're still winning and you're still probably going to win, but I just think his team is better.[/QUOTE]

The NBA was not. Many of those players were in the ABA.

mightybosstone
10-04-2017, 01:12 PM
We only have 35 games to go off of. We don't have all of them. So because we are missing data, you assume the data we have is completely worthless. That's stupid.
I never said it was worthless. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying it doesn't give me enough data to paint a vivid enough picture to where I can definitively say "Walt Bellamy performed extremely well against elite competition in the '60s."


It isn't an all-encompassing stat, no. But it gives you an idea. We don't have much more to go off of. But, I bet if his ts% was ****** that you would then claim it has merit.
I wouldn't. Don't presume to know what I'm going to say before I say it. That's insulting.


The bolded is utterly ridiculous. We all know how stacked Russell's teams were.
Sure. But 10-61? That's a 14 percent winning percentage in regular season matchups. If TS% is enough of a stat to give me an idea that Bellamy could have performed well against Russell, than that is enough of a stat to give me some pause about his performance against Russell.

That's my biggest problem with some of these unfamiliar '60s starters. We don't have enough concrete data or evidence to draw a definitive conclusion with how they would perform against competition from other eras. I give guys like Bellamy the benefit of the doubt for the most part, but I'm going to assume that just because he averaged an efficient 24 points per game against Russell that he's going to do the same thing in a series against Alonzo Mourning. That's asinine.


So is Tracy McGrady a lesser player than Manu Ginobili because of their post-seasons, irrespective of the rosters they were on?
Tracy McGrady played in a league with 30 teams. When Bellamy peaked in 62, there were nine teams. They expanded to 10 in 66-67, 12 in 67-68 and 14 in 68-69. But, bottom line, he played in an era where you only needed to win two series to make it to the Finals and it was pretty damn easy to make the playoffs. Bellamy's 64-65 Baltimore team posted a 37-43 record, but still managed to get to the conference finals. And he wasn't even the best player on that team in the postseason.


Bellamy is not a worse starter than Joakim Noah, Zelmo Beaty, Maurice Lucas, Dan Issel, Lovellette, Truck Robinson, George Mikan, Bob Love

And a few others who are in a similar tier as him include Gasol, Yao Ming, in my opinion. So you are wrong on that assertion as well.
Except I'm not. You named eight players. I said bottom 5-10. Last time I checked, nine is less than 10. And, yes, I would rather have Gasol or Yao in this game. Also, your assertion that I'm "wrong" is kind of an arrogant thing to say. These discussions are entirely subjective and hypothetical. You can disagree with me. That's fine. But don't be a jerk about it.


SO I have him beat at 3 positions, have the best player in the series in Pippen, and have a ton of other advantages.

And he has the second and third best player in the series, and I think his roster is a little more balanced than yours. To each his own. I like his team better. You don't have to agree with me. That's kind of how these things work.

Shammyguy3
10-04-2017, 08:40 PM
I never said it was worthless. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying it doesn't give me enough data to paint a vivid enough picture to where I can definitively say "Walt Bellamy performed extremely well against elite competition in the '60s."

I wouldn't. Don't presume to know what I'm going to say before I say it. That's insulting.


But I know for a fact you don't hold the same standards to players like Wilt and Russell. That is a logical flaw, because if anything the competition for them is "easier" because they don't play against themselves. Bellamy had to play against both.


Sure. But 10-61? That's a 14 percent winning percentage in regular season matchups. If TS% is enough of a stat to give me an idea that Bellamy could have performed well against Russell, than that is enough of a stat to give me some pause about his performance against Russell.

Wins/Losses is a team stat. You are really grasping at straws here, because you know how many hall of famers Russell had on his team, and how many Bellamy played with his entire career doesn't compare to a single season's Celtics roster


That's my biggest problem with some of these unfamiliar '60s starters. We don't have enough concrete data or evidence to draw a definitive conclusion with how they would perform against competition from other eras. I give guys like Bellamy the benefit of the doubt for the most part, but I'm going to assume that just because he averaged an efficient 24 points per game against Russell that he's going to do the same thing in a series against Alonzo Mourning. That's asinine.

If I said there are 35 box scores available out of 40 games, i wonder if you would change your tune.

And I'm not asking you to assume he will average 24 efficiently. I'm asking you to recognize that he played Wilt to Wilt's career average. Alonzo is not Wilt. So Alonzo won't be able to abuse him. And I am stating that Walt Bellamy scored the ball efficiently against Wilt. So he won't be a non-factor against Alonzo.



Tracy McGrady played in a league with 30 teams. When Bellamy peaked in 62, there were nine teams. They expanded to 10 in 66-67, 12 in 67-68 and 14 in 68-69. But, bottom line, he played in an era where you only needed to win two series to make it to the Finals and it was pretty damn easy to make the playoffs. Bellamy's 64-65 Baltimore team posted a 37-43 record, but still managed to get to the conference finals. And he wasn't even the best player on that team in the postseason.

So now, a post-season sample size of 10 games in 1965 is a big enough sample?



Except I'm not. You named eight players. I said bottom 5-10. Last time I checked, nine is less than 10. And, yes, I would rather have Gasol or Yao in this game. Also, your assertion that I'm "wrong" is kind of an arrogant thing to say. These discussions are entirely subjective and hypothetical. You can disagree with me. That's fine. But don't be a jerk about it.

This is what you said about Bellamy: "you and I both know that he's easily among the 5-10 worst starting centers in the game

I named 8 starting centers definitively worse than him. There were what, 20 teams in this thing? So he's middle of the pack. Which seems fair, even before accounting for his production against Wilt and Russell.

[/quote]
And he has the second and third best player in the series, and I think his roster is a little more balanced than yours. To each his own. I like his team better. You don't have to agree with me. That's kind of how these things work.[/QUOTE]

Debatable on the 3rd best player. I think Grant Hill's peak season was pretty damn incredible.

1997 Grant Hill: 21.4ppg - 9.0rpg - 7.3apg - 1.8spg - 0.6bpg - 114 ORtg - 7.9 VORP (1st in '97) - 8.0 BPM (2nd in '97) - 25.5 PER (4th in '97) - 55.6ts% - 36.0ast% - 28.31usg% - 0.223 WS/48 (5th in '97)

1st in VORP, 2nd in BPM, 4th in PER, 5th in WS/48.

That is just as impressive of a season either of Frazier or Mourning had. And after that, Price/Roundfield/Bellamy >>> Goodrich/George/Chambers.

So, like i said. I have the best player. Grant Hill's production is no worse than Frazier or Mourning. And my #3-#5 players are better than his #3-#5 players. Even if I concede Frazier or Mourning are the 2nd and 3rd best (which i'm not) I still have a better starting 5 that aren't liabilities on either end of the floor.

So I have the best, 4th best (arguably 2nd or 3rd), 5th best, 6th best , and 7th best. I'll concede Ebbs has the 8th and 9th best though.

Shammyguy3
10-04-2017, 08:45 PM
I really believe Azkaban wins this, im not arguing just to argue. Who will Goodrich and Chambers guard? Tbats teo defensive liabilities. Whoever Goodrich guards and Chambers guards will be in pick and roll hell

Dunkapolooza
10-04-2017, 10:12 PM
Damn this is a tough match up. I want to say that the deciding factor for me was pippen and hill being the two best individual scorers in the series, but I'm worried its the roundfield arguments lol.

I love frazier, George, and zo - all great two way players. I think that is the foundation of a juggernaut team, but ultimately Tom and Gail don't create enough of a mismatch.

For Azkaban the ability of all five players to move the ball without a lot of turnovers is huge to me. And the efg%. They all know what shots they want and how to get them. They have three guys who can be the play maker which means they can always start their offence with Ebbs' worst defender as the primary defender. We saw how well that worked for the cavs against the warriors. So well they had to go out and get Durant.

I don't think Frazier, PG, Zo, Tom, or anyone on his team can take over a game offensively like Hill or Pippen can. Azkaban has better rebounding too. So they'll probably get more possessions.

Dementors in seven.

mightybosstone
10-04-2017, 11:47 PM
I really believe Azkaban wins this, im not arguing just to argue. Who will Goodrich and Chambers guard? Tbats teo defensive liabilities. Whoever Goodrich guards and Chambers guards will be in pick and roll hell
Who is Price guarding? He's arguably the biggest defensive liability in this series. And while you have the best overall defender in the series, I'd argue ebbs' squad has more well above average defenders starting than your roster. Goodrich and Chambers may be below average, but so is Price, and I wouldn't cobsider young Grant Hill or Bellamy as above average.

Shammyguy3
10-04-2017, 11:50 PM
Who is Price guarding? He's arguably the biggest defensive liability in this series. And while you have the best overall defender in the series, I'd argue ebbs' squad has more well above average defenders starting than your roster. Goodrich and Chambers may be below average, but so is Price, and I wouldn't cobsider young Grant Hill or Bellamy as above average.


Price is also playing the least important position defensively. So my point stands. Frazier isnt ideal to guard eirher Pippen or Hill because of the big size difference. And those are the two biggest offensive threats in this series. George cant guard both. And when you factor in all of my players pass the ball, you cant cover up 2 defensive liabilities.

Its far easier to cover up one.

mightybosstone
10-05-2017, 08:26 AM
Price is also playing the least important position defensively. So my point stands. Frazier isnt ideal to guard eirher Pippen or Hill because of the big size difference. And those are the two biggest offensive threats in this series. George cant guard both. And when you factor in all of my players pass the ball, you cant cover up 2 defensive liabilities.

Its far easier to cover up one.
Question: How do we know that Goodrich is necessarily a defensive liability?

KnicksorBust
10-05-2017, 11:51 AM
Question: How do we know that Goodrich is necessarily a defensive liability?

Aren't you a numbers guy? His defensive win shares sucked. :)

KnicksorBust
10-05-2017, 11:52 AM
Congrats Shammy

Ebbs
10-05-2017, 03:20 PM
My bad guys lool. It was a busy *** week

mightybosstone
10-05-2017, 10:19 PM
Aren't you a numbers guy? His defensive win shares sucked. :)

lol.

Just for fun, I looked up Goodrich and Bellamy's DWS.

Bellamy's career high: 3.3.
Goodrich's career high: 3.5.