I was JUST starting to dream.2.03 Kevin Garnett, PF, 00s I think
Trying reallllly hard not to take any 10s guys, as that's where most of my knowledge is. KG is one of, if not the, the fiercest competitors and best defensive players of all time. Maybe one of the most underrated guys of all-time too by some, just landed in an awful situation in Minnesota for a majority of his career. Even though I don't like the Celtics, was happy to see him win one, he deserved it. Honestly think if him and Duncan had been put in opposite situations to start their careers you'd be seeing Garnett over Duncan in the all-time ranks, that's how close I think they were.
As an all time draft I personally think it should be career more than peak. But having everyone (or almost everyone) participate in the judging will help level out the different lines of thinking so people don’t get pissed of when one judge comes up with one particular criteria.Good call asking for it. Brings a question I was wondering about to mind.
when judging occurs are we planning on how the team would look for an entire year or are we looking at how a player was throughout that decade. I saw Derrick rose go in like the 9th or 10th round and thought that was really high for him considering he has been injured for a long time. But if we are taking him for just one year near his peak, might be worth it
From my judging postJUDGING
Some of the frustrations with judging in other drafts is people not knowing what the criteria will be when drafting and then a judge comes in with their own ideas of what is important (like what has “menace”, or “I haven’t heard of this one before so I’m going to rank it last”), and then everyone gets mad. In this draft, I’ll try to set some judging criteria in advance, but the key here will be participation of the drafters in the judging process. Every drafter will agree to help judge at least 3 of the era categories as well as the 2 “post-season” rankings. This will give more consensus, but more importantly will help smooth out the differences in opinion on what is valued higher – peak versus longevity, stats versus championships, all-stars and all-NBA selections versus Emmys (sorry, wrong draft). Guest non-drafter judges are also welcome to contribute to any rankings. I will consolidate all the rankings submissions unless others want to help tally the different category rankings. Sorry if I’m being overly anal about the process, I just figured it would be helpful for everyone to have a framework for judging before we start drafting.
Have not thought it through but I'll probably dock anyone with less than three solid season in a decade. I probably won't judge Rose kindly, unless it's Malik Rose.As an all time draft I personally think it should be career more than peak. But having everyone (or almost everyone) participate in the judging will help level out the different lines of thinking so people don’t get pissed of when one judge comes up with one particular criteria.
To follow up my own post, I'll look favorably on current all-stars with short but stellar résumés.Have not thought it through but I'll probably dock anyone with less than three solid season in a decade. I probably won't judge Rose kindly, unless it's Malik Rose.
[As of December 2019], his 7.1 career offensive box plus/minus trails LeBron's first-place 7.2. But check out how his five-year peak stacks up:
Stephen Curry: 9.5
Michael Jordan: 9.3
LeBron James: 8.6
Magic Johnson: 7.2
Larry Bird: 6.6
Of course, the 2015-16 season right in the middle of that run contains the best single-season offensive box plus/minus of all time at 12.4.
Thank you for making up my mind!
He was the other one I was thinking about at the turn.
The other 2 guys I considered.
I was JUST starting to dream.
Larry Bird went 1.09 to me in the draft slot trade. Gally moved down to the 10 spot (Duncan) and is now on the board.I'm super jealous of Gally right now. Bird fell too far and now he gets one of my next two ranked guys, who I am shocked are still available.
Obviously you can't spotlight your shock, but it does imply that there were reaches. Name names, man. Who are the reaches?Curry was a great value, but I'd actually hoped he'd fall to me.
I'm super jealous of Gally right now. Bird fell too far and now he gets one of my next two ranked guys, who I am shocked are still available.
yeah being on the bookends is not great. I think Jordan is by far the best player ever when you look at the advanced stats and with the eye test, but lot of drop from #1 to #32. Might have to take Ben Simmons at #32Larry Bird went 1.09 to me in the draft slot trade. Gally moved down to the 10 spot (Duncan) and is now on the board.
I do like the players on the board right now as well though. Good stretch of talent mid-2nd round.
Where would David Robinson rank had he been a Laker?i'm glad we are going to take some time with the judging. Looking around at different lists of top NBA players of all time there is a lot of name recognition, but some of those guys are there because they were propped up by who they played with and some guys who were big names but their stats, and advanced stats, don't represent where they should be.
Hard to determine with some of these guys what the actual value may be. There have been some terrific players on bad teams that had to deal with double teams and focus of the defense.
in the era he played, i would think he could be around top 3-5. it's funny because you can give off the top of your head answers like that, then actually looking at the numbers makes it so much more interesting.Where would David Robinson rank had he been a Laker?
It wasn't being on the Spurs that held Robinson back -- it was his lost 1996-97 season with back ailments and a broken foot. Before those injuries, he already was a steady 25+ ppg game scorer.[David Robinson] averaged 21 pts/gm for his career and you have to think that number would have been closer to 25-27 if he were on the Lakers.
good point. i also think if they didn't get the chance to draft Duncan Robinson probably would have had better overall numbers.It wasn't being on the Spurs that held Robinson back -- it was his lost 1996-97 season with back ailments and a broken foot. Before those injuries, he already was a steady 25+ ppg game scorer.
Robinson's lost season in San Antonio enabled the team to get the lottery pick that would eventually turn into Tim Duncan. The rest was history.
Looking at the board, I am most surprised by Hayes and a little surprised by Baylor so early. I also thought Curry wouldn't go so soon with some of the other names still out there, but I was keeping my eye on him as well.Obviously you can't spotlight your shock, but it does imply that there were reaches. Name names, man. Who are the reaches?
I thought he was like a 3rd year guy with the Heat?good point. i also think if they didn't get the chance to draft Duncan Robinson probably would have had better overall numbers.
Grading this is going to be tricky. I am way off with some of these top 50 players of all time list. I'll wait until one guy that really stands out to me gets drafted but he is valued way, way higher then i think he should be
lol, it's like some of the duo's who played together for so many years. Guess i just can't separate Tim Duncan and David RobinsonI thought he was like a 3rd year guy with the Heat?
Right, it's you I'm jealous of.Larry Bird went 1.09 to me in the draft slot trade. Gally moved down to the 10 spot (Duncan) and is now on the board.
I do like the players on the board right now as well though. Good stretch of talent mid-2nd round.
My thinking with taking Baylor where I did was partially his overall value and partially his replacement value. The difference between him and another SF from the 60s that would be available in a few rounds is much greater than say Curry and another PG from the 10s in a few rounds. (Not to single out Curry, I was thinking the same thing with Karl Malone and 90s PFs). Plus Eff Karl Malone.Looking at the board, I am most surprised by Hayes and a little surprised by Baylor so early. I also thought Curry wouldn't go so soon with some of the other names still out there, but I was keeping my eye on him as well.
I'm not necessarily surprised that he wasn't #2, although that is definitely where I would have taken him, I'm blown away he dropped to #6. The only argument I could really make not to take him ahead of Wilt and Russell is that in this format there are a lot of really good players from the 10s whereas the the 60s are very shallow. I don't think there is a real argument to make for Magic or Kareem (especially since Kareem's longevity is a bit diluted in this format).
I realized I never responded to these posts that believe LeBron would be a better pick than Kareem, so here is my rebuttal.I'm gonna chirp from courtside. I was shocked he didn't go second. The others all have great cases, but damn...we're talking about greatness and longevity to boot, plus playing with athletes as big, fast, and as crazily athletic as the ones today, ones that span almost two generations while LeBron still LeBrons and is still, amazingly, one of the best at it by all accounts.
The King.
PLEASE STOP. He was up against great centers like Wilt, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Moses (all MVPs) and he was consistently better than them all.
Thought this was for Gally, just realized it was directed at me.dood
takes some getting used to, esp since the whole reason for this all is really the dialogue, the comps...Thought this was for Gally, just realized it was directed at me.
There's like a one-round-ish delay for most writeups for this reason I think. Will try to make sure I do them for my picks still because I agree that's the best part.takes some getting used to, esp since the whole reason for this all is really the dialogue, the comps...
when Ma was setting this up, i wanted to insist that, unlike recent FFA drafts, judges actually read the writeups. they have lately been avoiding that so not to be biased qbout the drafter, but it makes less sense to avoid the case made for the selections. i WANT people to look at my briefs...There's like a one-round-ish delay for most writeups for this reason I think. Will try to make sure I do them for my picks still because I agree that's the best part.
I assumed we'd write up a brief for each of our teamswhen Ma was setting this up, i wanted to insist that, unlike recent FFA drafts, judges actually read the writeups. they have lately been avoiding that so not to be biased qbout the drafter, but it makes less sense to avoid the case made for the selections. i WANT people to look at my briefs...
I don't know. We can't even get people to make 2 picks in 2 days. Not sure if that level of commitment will have enough follow through.I assumed we'd write up a brief for each of our teams