10kth reply! hehehe

On paper, I have to think the first Rockets team was the worst champ....pretty much Hakeem and role players.

on paper, how could it not be the most recent pistons?

I think this is the 3rd time I've said this now, but....

You can't change the rule because people drafted based upon the age 24 rule. It would change players' values drastically in some cases. Nobody is debating which would be best to have done from the start. Everyone, except you, seems to realize that you simply can't change it now once people have already drafted based upon the rules in place.

this.

This, sir, is why you are wrong. It very much does matter. But thanks for at least being condescending.

Rony- 16.1/10 .503%
Ewing- 21.5/11.2 .499%

Rony- 14.3/9.7 .443%
DRob- 21.7/11.8 .460%

Rony- 12.9/8.2 .500%
Hakeem- 24.4/12 .544%

Those are the three best after Shaq. That isn't awful. What do you expect? Shaq is going to make everyone not named Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing look bad. You also have to remember that these are numbers over a career too, Seikaly had a much different career than all of these guys we are comparing, he went from being able to grab 20+ boards at times as well as big scoring games to 2 point games and just awful production after Miami which really brings a lot of those numbers above. Whereas the first round centers are the best of the best b/c the were great but great for a long time.

1. I don't understand why this is a problem. Its not like these teams are actually going to be competing against real NBA teams. We're simply drafting for the fun of it and to debate players. Who care if theres no vet leadership????

2. No clue what this means, but again we're just drafting in order to stir debate and argue about which players were/are more valuable.

3. We've already been through this a ton, and I don't want to go through the debate again....Lets just say that its been discussed and move on.

also, to tdarko's defense, i really don't think seikaly would have been available in 30 picks, so if this was the guy he envisions in his 'system' then the trade up was probably worth it.

although i generally think adamantly arguing impossible/improbable points regarding your own team (health, usage, hypotheticals, etc) is kind of trivial, because it usually only gets people to form bias against you

replying as I go through the thread, so just in case nobody has answered this for you yet:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html

You have no idea why I was being condescending? Re-read your original post.

I do like how I show you the numbers and you completely omit everything in the post except my statement, which can always be refuted if never backed up.

Sorry you don't want your pick in the middle of this but Deke isn't beating Shaq or any of the big 3/4 after that. You can't beat a Shaq team w/ Shaq in his prime playing inside out. No chance. In this hypothetical at least.

QFT.

KLJ- To be honest though, it is kind of fun talking about this stuff.

Fair enough, and those stats are better than I expected given the first ones I looked up. I'll reserve any further points until the next few guys I had ahead of Rony have been taken.

+1

I went to his stats page expecting him to be insanely efficient, yet he wasn't even close. Yet another example of how our eyes can decieve us when watching a game but the stats get us back in line.

Well, your eyes anyways.

Not really a counterpoint.

O'Neal's usage has been in the 25-35% range. He's not good enough to pull this off efficiently. It doesn't matter if Reggie was on his team, because however the other 70% of shots were taken, O'Neal was still asked to play way above himself offensively.

I don't expect him to have higher than a 15% usage rate on my team. Also, he's never had teammates that can set him up and get him the ball in his scoring zone half as well as my team can.

It seems really fair to me that we should assume O'Neal's efficiency numbers would skyrocket on my squad.

Looking back on those Nets teams though, they weren't that good offensively like I remembered, but had a couple #1 years in a row defensively. Shows how good Kidd and KMart were defensively.

the reverse snake obviously hurt him the most, and I think he really didn't have many steals fall to him at his later picks....theres a big luck factor in drafts like this, and I just don't think he ended up being very lucky. I'm trying to come up with a better team he could've taken, and while there are a few options, its somewhat tough.

huh? Jordan is most definitely a high volue/high efficiency guy.

I agree with all of this, except for the "skyrocketting" part. But I also think that the same argument could be made for most teams that have depth. Except for perhaps teams like Steroid Boys, given that he has so many ball-stoppers...

I wouldn't have traded the pick, but would've gone with Schrempf, Dalembert, and probably Terry.

the Assani carpet bombs... that Bobbo has quit.

wtf hated on Natt? Most people had never heard of him but said that his stats looked good.

I think Charles Oakley going later in that round was Exhibit A, and this should be Exhibit B.