What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***** ALL-TIME NBA/ABA DRAFT ***** (Scoobus is Champion!) (2 Viewers)

The back of my mind keeps saying that if I took Rudy Gobert over Marques Johnson I'd have the best in show and the best 2010s team. Any comments to tell me it wouldn't have nattered or that it definitely would have been a difference maker? I only need to turn that 11 and a 13 into 15/16 scores.
In my mind, Gobert doesn’t give you that big of a bump over Noah (I really like Noah for the decade).

I think you would need an upgrade at the guard spot (and isn’t Middleton more of a SF than a guard?) to be considered one of the overall best decade teams.  That’s where you could have improved your team more. 

 
I had Gobert as #1 C and Noah as #11....but the group was extremely tight.  For perspective, my rankings had Dwight Howard as 20 points above Gobert (he was my pre-draft #1 for the era) but Noah was only 14 points behind Gobert.
Curious where you had Marc Gasol in your rankings. I had him as one of the top centers in the decade. 

 
In my mind, Gobert doesn’t give you that big of a bump over Noah (I really like Noah for the decade).

I think you would need an upgrade at the guard spot (and isn’t Middleton more of a SF than a guard?) to be considered one of the overall best decade teams.  That’s where you could have improved your team more. 
Yeah probably true. On the upgrade I mean. Middleton plays a boatload of SG. I think it's a huge advantage to have his length there, and he's among the best shooters of the decade.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my mind, Gobert doesn’t give you that big of a bump over Noah (I really like Noah for the decade).

I think you would need an upgrade at the guard spot (and isn’t Middleton more of a SF than a guard?) to be considered one of the overall best decade teams.  That’s where you could have improved your team more. 
I realllllly wanted Lowry. Just barely missed out. Was thiiiisssssssss close to taking him my pick before he went too.

Also wanted Parker but think he was overdrafted AND then put into the wrong era.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Damn. I am a crazy person. I honestly can't believe that many people had the Jayrodsquad at the top. Horrible fit across the board. This 10s round really made me feel like people went on pure name value and didn't think through it much. 
I'm guessing you and me were his 13s.

 
I think it is @Jayrod who has been doing the draft capital rankings, but would really love to see those across all the decades if feasible. Neat way to analyze this all. 
Here is the breakdown by team.  I've included their average ADP for the 6 eras and the total draft spot movement because both numbers are relevant.  If everything was equal, the ADP would average out to 8.5.  However, based on when you selected your picks in each era, that fluctuated.  Anyway, here are the final results in alphabetical order (average ADP rank is in parenthesis):

  • Doug B +3 (9.3)
  • EYLive -6 (8.5)
  • Frosty +6 (8.8)
  • Gally +1 (9.0)
  • Higgins -9 (8.2)
  • Ilov80s -11 (7.7)
  • Instinctive +2 (7.8)
  • Jayrod 0 (7.8)
  • Kev4029 -2 (7.7)
  • Mister CIA -5 (8.3)
  • Modogg -11 (8.7)
  • Scoobus +2 (8.8)
  • Timschochet -1 (9.0)
  • Trader Jake +19 (9.5)
  • Wikkid -5 (7.5)
  • Yo Mama +17 (9.3)
Anyway, you can see the two big gainers, Jake & Yo Mama, both had to come from behind a bit, yet I was a +0 and am only 9 points back from Jake.  And you are a +2, but only 7 points behind Jake.  Either way, Jake and Yo Mama did great, but I think that will hurt them in the Best in Show... but we'll see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
we will see, might be right. but really can't be under-stated how little organized basketball Embiid had played before the NBA. i think he first was introduced to basketball when he was 14. No reason to think that Embiid doesn't continue dominance for the next 5 years and shadows everyone else. 
Reminiscent of Hakeem Olajuwon, who started playing at age 15.

 
I’m guessing with mine whoever just hates Melo, he can be a polarizing player. With Kev, no idea. Would love to hear explanations, or anonymous explanations if people feel better doing it that way. Those 2 don’t make much sense to me, but it’s all subjective.
I'm curious here too. 

I had Tier 1 - Instinctive and Yo Mama

Tier 2 - Scoob and Jayrod

Tier 3 - Frosty and myself

Then a huge drop off to the next tier.

 
I was contemplating moving my 70s team into the Best in Show, but I just think they are too weak on the outside.  That team needed a solid wing and Buse/Drew are just not good enough.

My favorite team was my 80's squad, but Ruland would get eaten alive at the C position and Roundfield can't make up that difference at just 6'8" and 205.

 
I'm going down a bit of an Olajuwon rabbit hole right now. Since we've just finished building super-teams, I wanted to see if any of you guys ever heard about a real-life super-team that almost came to pass in the 80s:

In his autobiography, Living the Dream, Olajuwon mentions an intriguing draft trade offered to the Rockets that would have sent Clyde Drexler and the number two pick in the 1984 NBA draft from Portland in exchange for Ralph Sampson. Had the Rockets made the deal, Olajuwon states the Rockets could have selected Michael Jordan with the number two pick to play alongside Olajuwon and Drexler, who had established chemistry playing together during their Phi Slama Jama days in college. Sportswriter Sam Smith speculates that such a trade "would have changed league history and maybe the entire Michael Jordan legend".
😵

With The Dream, His Airness, and The Glide on board ... the Rockets could've just let a couple of random ballboys suit up each night and still ran teams out of the gym. Lord. 

 
Ok, looking ahead to the post-season rounds starting next week. Here’s what I’m thinking:

Option A

- regular ranking process Monday for best in show (writeups over weekend)

- head to head best in show tournament voting (seeded based on rankings) - first round Tue, quarters Wed , Semis Thu, Championship Fri

- same process following week for Pantheon teams

Option B

- best in show and pantheon rankings next week (Tue/Thu)

- Head to head tournaments after that
Really would like to see the tourney without the influence of the rankings that everyone is complaining about.

Also updated my pantheon team and replaced Streve Francis with Horry.  

I'm stumped trying to decide between Jerry Lucas and Horace Grant for the PF position.  Lucas, for now.
Grant will help you with my rankings.

 
I'm curious here too. 

I had Tier 1 - Instinctive and Yo Mama

Tier 2 - Scoob and Jayrod

Tier 3 - Frosty and myself

Then a huge drop off to the next tier.
I had Scoob @ #5 and you at #9.

I dislike Melo, but that is a solid squad (though not very spectacular outside of Gobert/Melo).

With Kev, I think the greatness of Draymond's defense is the best attribute.  I'm the biggest fan of Jokic on the board right now, but he is still peaking and just hasn't done enough yet to warrant full consideration in this contest.  I also think JJ and Galinari are bottom tier guys.  Conley is good, not great.

 
I'm going down a bit of an Olajuwon rabbit hole right now. Since we've just finished building super-teams, I wanted to see if any of you guys ever heard about a real-life super-team that almost came to pass in the 80s:

😵

With The Dream, His Airness, and The Glide on board ... the Rockets could've just let a couple of random ballboys suit up each night and still ran teams out of the gym. Lord. 
Meh, everyone would just clog the paint and their usage rates would suffer and their lack of outside shooting would have made them easy to guard.  /Instinctive/

 
Really would like to see the tourney without the influence of the rankings that everyone is complaining about.

Grant will help you with my rankings.
We’re just using the rankings to set the seedlings, but I think specific matchups will drive the winners in the tourney (at least for me). 

 
I had Scoob @ #5 and you at #9.

I dislike Melo, but that is a solid squad (though not very spectacular outside of Gobert/Melo).

With Kev, I think the greatness of Draymond's defense is the best attribute.  I'm the biggest fan of Jokic on the board right now, but he is still peaking and just hasn't done enough yet to warrant full consideration in this contest.  I also think JJ and Galinari are bottom tier guys.  Conley is good, not great.
Gallinari hurt you a lot in mine too @Kev4029. I lopped off a little but not a lot from Jokic for longevity (but then again I'm the guy who took bright but short lived stars multiple times). And the overall fit of Gallo + Jokic + JJ on D...not sure Draymond and Conley make up for it.

 
Really would like to see the tourney without the influence of the rankings that everyone is complaining about.

Grant will help you with my rankings.
By the way, we take rankings from non drafters, so you can pm me your rankings for the best in show or pantheon categories when we do them. I’ll post all the rosters here. 

 
Meh, everyone would just clog the paint and their usage rates would suffer and their lack of outside shooting would have made them easy to guard.  /Instinctive/
It was a different game. The paint was clogged for everyone and you couldn't play defense like you can today. Critical rule changes since then:

  • Freedom of movement
  • elimination of handchecks
  • Approval of Zone (the most important)
In the days where this team would have reigned supreme, you could double, or you could not. No shading the paint for your 2.5, no bumping the roll man, no digging and dodging, etc. 

If you took your 2010s squad and literally just put it in the 90s, it would have been #1 for me in a tier by itself. No joke. They'd have been dominant. Easily the best 90s team for me and it honestly wouldn't have been remotely close EVEN WITH the legends in the era.

 
for what it is worth i didn't get deadline before submitting my line-up, but i had you at 6th overall.

i had Doug B 1

INstinctive 2

Frosty 3

timschochet 4

Yo Mama 5 

Gally 6
I kinda thought that Steph Curry + Paul George + three dudes from the Y coulda finished Top-3 for the 2010s. Probably should have finished this squad sooner -- now I don't really have a competitive team for Best in Show (was going to use 2010s).

 
By the way, we take rankings from non drafters, so you can pm me your rankings for the best in show or pantheon categories when we do them. I’ll post all the rosters here. 
I would have done the 10s, just wasn't good timing with work.  Honestly those teams were stacked and most would have crushed the 00's.

I think the headed to head format will be awesome.  Much easier to analyze and compare/contrat two things at a time vs. 16.

 
2010s Rankings, continued

MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES DIVISION

Kaaaaahhnnnn!!!!!  The first of our meme teams for the decade.  The T-wolves never recovered from the Kevin Garnett trade in 2007.   In 2009, the franchise hired David Kahn as president of basketball ops and followed that up by signing Kurt Rambis to a four year deal to be their head coach – ouch!  Also that year, they famously picked not one, but two PGs ahead of Steph Curry (and one of those was Jonny Flynn) – double ouch!  The 2010 draft brought Wesley Johnson ahead of guys like DeMarcus Cousins, Gordon Hayward, and Paul George.  I’d go on, but Frosty is about to reach through my phone screen Ring-style and choke me out.  Minnesota has had an amazing .348 winning % since 2010 and only made the playoffs one year in that span.

The teams in this tier shouldn’t have had Kahn in charge of their drafting in this decade either.
How dare you.

 
I'm going down a bit of an Olajuwon rabbit hole right now. Since we've just finished building super-teams, I wanted to see if any of you guys ever heard about a real-life super-team that almost came to pass in the 80s:

😵

With The Dream, His Airness, and The Glide on board ... the Rockets could've just let a couple of random ballboys suit up each night and still ran teams out of the gym. Lord
I could of been a contender.

 
Here's what I think happened with Kev. I saw his perimeter guys and thought, wow that is terrible. Then I didn't give him enough credit for Green (don't like him) and Jokic (not enough longevity). My apologies Kev. You deserved a better ranking. 

 
So, I have a confession to make.  I severely overvalued one team in the 2010's.

2010s Rankings Details

4 - Gally - 2,4,4,4,5,5,7,11,13
That 13 is from me.  In fairness, I think 4 pts is much too low.  They have a great backcourt and will rule the glass.  But I totally messed up giving this team 4th place.  My objective ranking system put them at 5th and I saw CP3 (who I think is one of the top 5 PG's of all time) and Mitchell (who I think is the next great SG) in the backcourt and failed to look past them and somehow ended up moving them up a spot without ever realizing that he had put a PF at SF and a C at PF with a C who never leaves the paint.  It was just lazy and I didn't take the time to really look the team over after spending way too long looking at the top 3 teams.  TBH, I kind of glossed over the entire rest of the rankings due to time constraints that day and leaned a little more heavily on my calculated rankings for everything after the top spots than I had done in the earlier eras.  This team isn't terrible, but they aren't that good either.

 
POST-SEASON TIMING

Best in Show Rankings (counts double in scoring)

- Fri 4/9 - rosters out, writeups

- Mon 4/12 - rankings due 3pm pacific, results released
So, here are the teams for Best In Show that are on the spreadsheet's teams page --> HERE

  • @modogg - 1990's (Stockton, MJ, Majerle, Larry Johnson, DC)
  • @timschochet - 1960's (Hazzard, Selvy, Pollard, Mikkelson, Wilt)
  • @wikkidpissah - 1980's (Magic, Griffith, King, Tisdale, Ewing)
  • Jayrod - 2010's (Lillard, DWade, Iggy, Giannis, Horford)
  • @Ilov80s - 1960's (Martin, Barnett, Walker, Pettit, Russell)
  • @Frostillicus - 2010's (Rondo, Joe Johnson, LeBron, Love, Aldridge)
  • @EYLive - 2000's (Marbury, Kobe, Matrix, AK47, Brand)
  • @Instinctive - ??
  • @trader jake - 1990's (Price, Hawkins, Hill, Chuck, Daugherty)
  • @Gally - 2000's (Parker, JET, Peja, Timmy, Dwight)
  • @Mister CIA - 1990's (Glove, Strckland, Ceballos, Grant, Hakeem)
  • @Doug B - 2010's (Curry, Lavine, PG13, Sabonis, Vucevic)
  • @higgins - 1970's (Lucas, Gus, Dr. J, Hayes, Gilmore)
  • @scoobus - 2000's (Kidd, Allen, Bowen, KG, Shaq)
  • @Kev4029 - 1960's (KC, Logo, Gola, Debusschere, Johnston)
  • @Yo Mama - ??
If that's wrong, please correct it.  If you don't have anyone selected, it's time to make a decision.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no idea which decade to throw in there. All my decade teams are mediocre. (I drafted poorly, what can I say?) Everybody else has at least one really good decade team. I do not. 
Give me the 60s I guess. At least I have Wilt. 

 
I have no idea which decade to throw in there. All my decade teams are mediocre. (I drafted poorly, what can I say?) Everybody else has at least one really good decade team. I do not. 
Give me the 60s I guess. At least I have Wilt. 
That team had your best finish with it's decade and I have it as your highest ranked team.

 
I have no idea which decade to throw in there. All my decade teams are mediocre. (I drafted poorly, what can I say?) Everybody else has at least one really good decade team. I do not. 
Give me the 60s I guess. At least I have Wilt. 
I feel the same way :kicksrock:

 
So, I have a confession to make.  I severely overvalued one team in the 2010's.

That 13 is from me.  In fairness, I think 4 pts is much too low.  They have a great backcourt and will rule the glass.  But I totally messed up giving this team 4th place.  My objective ranking system put them at 5th and I saw CP3 (who I think is one of the top 5 PG's of all time) and Mitchell (who I think is the next great SG) in the backcourt and failed to look past them and somehow ended up moving them up a spot without ever realizing that he had put a PF at SF and a C at PF with a C who never leaves the paint.  It was just lazy and I didn't take the time to really look the team over after spending way too long looking at the top 3 teams.  TBH, I kind of glossed over the entire rest of the rankings due to time constraints that day and leaned a little more heavily on my calculated rankings for everything after the top spots than I had done in the earlier eras.  This team isn't terrible, but they aren't that good either.
At least it was a rank consistent with your team building philosophy that fit is irrelevant  :boxing:

 
I’ll make up my mind soon on which team I’m using (debating between my 70s and my 10s teams) and I’ll post all the rosters. 

 
So, I have a confession to make.  I severely overvalued one team in the 2010's.

That 13 is from me.  In fairness, I think 4 pts is much too low.  They have a great backcourt and will rule the glass.  But I totally messed up giving this team 4th place.  My objective ranking system put them at 5th and I saw CP3 (who I think is one of the top 5 PG's of all time) and Mitchell (who I think is the next great SG) in the backcourt and failed to look past them and somehow ended up moving them up a spot without ever realizing that he had put a PF at SF and a C at PF with a C who never leaves the paint.  It was just lazy and I didn't take the time to really look the team over after spending way too long looking at the top 3 teams.  TBH, I kind of glossed over the entire rest of the rankings due to time constraints that day and leaned a little more heavily on my calculated rankings for everything after the top spots than I had done in the earlier eras.  This team isn't terrible, but they aren't that good either.
I totally agree that 13 was too high and 4 was too low.   I have always said I thought they should have finished around 10th or 11th.  

I guess I get a bit confused in the discussions about players being out of position.  They played the positions I had them at as listed in all the references I looked at.  I wasn't putting them somewhere they never played.  If you are talking about where they fit best there is some merit to that but then I go back to previous discussion on Duncan where multiple people said they would have put him at C and I think that would have been less than ideal.  I guess it's a fine line and personal preference on some of these guys as to whether you ding them or not.  

I didn't think they were so far out of position to cause major deductions but the majority did.  I also guess I should have swapped Parker and Paul and made my 2000's team stronger.   Is it too late for that for the Best in Show?  haha

 
For the best in show, since we’re not just competing with the same decade, any concerns about players in the wrong decade should be out the window. 

 
For the best in show, since we’re not just competing with the same decade, any concerns about players in the wrong decade should be out the window. 
I'm planning to redo all of my judging for the Best in Show and Pantheon teams.  There is going to be a lot more analysis of team chemistry, playing styles, strengths/weaknesses, etc. 

 
For the best in show, since we’re not just competing with the same decade, any concerns about players in the wrong decade should be out the window. 
So can you re-position players?  I would think not, and that you have to go with the team you submitted for the decade.  For example, I could switch Parker and Paul as they both played both decades but I don't think it should be allowed.  Your submission for Best in Show should be the team you submitted for the decade.  But if it is allowed I will take full advantage...hahaha

 
So can you re-position players?  I would think not, and that you have to go with the team you submitted for the decade.  For example, I could switch Parker and Paul as they both played both decades but I don't think it should be allowed.  Your submission for Best in Show should be the team you submitted for the decade.  But if it is allowed I will take full advantage...hahaha
Yeah we need to stick with the teams as we submitted them for decades judging. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top