I would much rather have gone with a guy who scored more efficiently than Finley with that team.

Oh and I agree that it's not a knock on Chandler.. although I thought he was a bit of a reach considering there are better defensive/offensive guys out there imo.

Chambers is solid but not amazing value there imo. I like...

That team was so sick. Poor Sonics who might have won in another year. The Glove, Kemp, and Hersey Hawkins in their primes, and Detlef raining 3's as a 33 year old.

+1

or him being in jail for a small period of time, that's always a concern. someone like, i dunno, john stockton, runs a 0.000001% chance of being arrested and missing time. with ron, it's more like 20-30%.

Offensively I like it a lot.

Defensively you're starting a 6"2' PG and a 6"3' SG. And then you have McGrady who has never been a great defender at SF.

I think I know who I would take if I were him, but I really hope he doesn't take him so he falls to me.

I don't agree, Chandler is a better 1on1 defender but Camby is as good as they come in terms of weak side help. Camby is also a better rebounder - Tyson is thought of as more athletic only because Camby is like 30+ now, whereas Chandler is 25, but Camby was just as athletic then.

Also, I was having this discussion with Tbach, 100% of Chandler's offense is created by Chris Paul or putbacks. He literally has zero offensive post moves and is not a good passer. Camby, although it's hella ugly, has a midrange shot. Further, he's a better passer, court vision and lobs. So... I actually think Camby is a small upgrade on both ends of the floor. (Plus, Camby has proven he can play in a slow pace, like his Knick teams, and a fast pace, like the Nugget teams - Chandler has not proven he can run up and down, even though I believe he could do a decent job of it) The only advantage Chandler has is Camby is literally stick man in terms of health, but Chandler isn't exactly 100% healthy either. (Has never played all 82 games, missed more than half of the 2003-04 season)

Woah...you can search with min. and max. stat categories there? How do you do that?

Victor - stop clogging the thread. He hasn't responded yet because he's still reading through earlier posts. Look at the time limit. You're smarter than this.

I agree w/ Assani above, Artest is probably the only SF that can match LeBron's strength. He can guard most 4s and it's not really a problem. Basically, you can stick him on some 1s, all 2s/3s, most 4s, and a rare 5, and you have a solid matchup in your favor.

lol assani is a newb

click "full court" on the top

good comparison, actually. the major advantage thorpe has here is longevity (proven track record) and no injury concerns. both of which somewhat mitigate the other factors. but you're right, very similar dudes.

Man, so sick. best offense and defense. HARD TO BEAT THAT.

also - funny, but sad, that the top 4 teams had the top 5 defenses.
Celts, Pistons, and Lakers all have good offenses too tho.

good point here, tho... you need a top notch defense (would be interesting if someone could find the avg off rating/def rating for championship teams) to win. offense is important but for whatever reason slightly less so.

yeah, yet another cast of characters who had a great team, only to be snuffed out in the Jordan era. That Sonics team IIRC had VERY good ratings too (top 5 both off and def)

I don't like to argue this because its kinda lame to defend your pick over and over, but a 24/25 year old Thorpe dropped 20 and 10, whereas Chandler is 11/11. Thorpe can score on his own, Chandler can dunk when CP3 lobs it to him. Thorpe was also a pretty good passer. Thorpe is a PF, Chandler is a C. Ok, end rant/

well i made that post over an hour ago so i realized what was up. i think. never can tell.

still kinda funny i get on assanis shtlist for taking 10min to respond to his 200 word post.

oh ya, the other thing about his post was asking me to come up with 20 players. ya assani, sorry i didnt whip that up before the time limit.

Seattle 1996:
Offensive Rating: 110.3 (7th of 29), Defensive Rating: 102.1 (2nd of 29)

don't understand how Chanlder and Thorpe's offense is at all "similar"

I think these are mostly valid points. I agree that Chandler's 1v1 D is better (marginally), but Chandler's help defense is also as good or better than Camby's. Thus, I don't agree that Camby is an upgrade at the defensive end. I agree w/ everything you said about the offense.

His health is much better than Camby's (despite your phrasing) - 71+ games/year except when he was injuried for 1/2 a season v. Camby's very inconsistant 29+ game/year since entering the league.

I think that Chandler's minor advantage on defense + his health > the offensive boost that Camby brings. They were 1 (Chandler) and 2 (Camby) on my board - I just wanted to get a center who would work well w/ GP and, IMO, I would have got that w/ either.

fanmail: dont troll me, 7th is close to 5 :P

Just a note re: Chandler vs Camby, is this one of those picks we can reasonably say depends entirely upon who you pair them up with? As in, depending upon the other big, I could see one player better in your defensive scheme than the other? Same deal with offense.

A PG (like CP3) to make use of a big is more effective with Chandler, since Chandler plays closer to the basket, but a guy perhaps like Tony Parker (who scores in the paint) would benefit from Camby "spacing" the floor a bit by standing out at the 3pt line? I dunno, just a thought, I think they're both near equal value and pretty good selections.

I wasn't trolling, just pointing out how awesome they were.

i know you werent trolling, just a bad attempt at a joke. regardless, thanks for pointing out their specific stats, and it's a shame they didn't win a championship.

bobbo,

we can't analyze that kind of stuff just ask tbach