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!
In my mind, Gobert doesn’t give you that big of a bump over Noah (I really like Noah for the decade).
Curious where you had Marc Gasol in your rankings. I had him as one of the top centers in the decade.
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.
I realllllly wanted Lowry. Just barely missed out. Was thiiiisssssssss close to taking him my pick before he went too.
If only their owner had managed to surround them with talent that appealed to the massesLowry and Gobert ended up where they belonged.
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):
I'm curious here too.
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.
I had Scoob @ #5 and you at #9.
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/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.
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).
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.
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.
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:
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).
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 could of been a contender.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.
That's a good thing because i'll have your Best In Show team taking a 3 place deduction for you being a TPups fan.
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.
So, here are the teams for Best In Show that are on the spreadsheet's teams page --> HERE
That team had your best finish with it's decade and I have it as your highest ranked team.
At least it was a rank consistent with your team building philosophy that fit is irrelevant
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'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.
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
