Arena The First Basketball Draft

That was actually in reference to not only this one (which puzzles me for many reasons) but also to another, um, judgment, falling in favor a far-from-the-top-50 guy. Which also puzzles me.

 

which one?

and again, i'm not alone on this particular matchup...

 

The one with Archibald/Parish vs. Gervin/Laimbeer. The last thing I heard is that basketball is all about matchups... Therefore Laimbeer shuts everything down. Not sure what that had to do with matchups, but I am very keenly aware that... Laimbeer shuts everything down. Not sure how, especially with so much space, but he shuts everything down. I'm surprised my computer is still on.

 

i didn't think he shut both players down, but i didn't really think achibald could score more than gervin. i did think he'd limit parrish enough that it would come down to those to more than anything else. i'll admit i might have been wrong.

 

Now that I can understand. Not entirely agree, but I can understand.

I would say though, there seems to be a common thread of treating all these games as a bunch of 1 on 1s instead of 2 on 2 and 3 on 3. The Parish/Archibald one for instance, is forgetting that my team has played w each other, and that Archibald is not only a scorer (though not on the level of Gervin) but an amazing passer. And he's playing with someone he's played with. Even in 2 on 2, if you don't think playing with someone whose ways you know doesn't matter, well, you need to play more 2 on 2, and with people you know.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ::Has played more::

So, I would say take that into consideration. If Gervin is that much better and Laimbeer can stop enough to counter that (not to mention Parish being the better rebounder, the quicker man and also the better defender), well, I can't do much about that. But passing anticipation is pretty critical, and it really be like my team working together vs 2 individuals who... Won't probably, especially with neither being a noted passer near the level of Archibald.

I'd also point out that my 3 on 3 team has both played with Moses Malone, and...

I was really wondering about this. Have yall actually watched Bobby Jones play? Rodman gets shutdown cred, as does Bill Russell, as does Laimbeer even more than Parish, and... Jones gets left out to Tony Parker because Parker is fast? Really? Jones is extremely quick, has ridiculous height and reach, impeccable technique, and is a 10-time all-1st-team D man. Even taking out the 2 ABAs, that's still more than Rodman, and Malone might not be the defender Russell was, but he is a better rebounder and it's not like his D is that much worse either, he was a great defender. Which leads to my next point, especially in 3 on 3. TEAM DEFENSE. Again, my team knows each other, point there. We have 1 ridiculous defender, and 1 very good and I can't imagine Wilkins being a slouch there. We have cohesion, we have the defenders, and Bobby Jones' shooting and smarts are also being left out here. He's got a pretty high field goal percentage and will outhustle anyone on the court. You don't become a 4-time all-star (+1 in ABA) by not scoring. You just don't. And your boy Parker, quick as he was, and sure okay he was, is not just gonna dominate all-time great D and great TEAM D. That is something my team has that there's... Just can't say they have really at all. Parker was great for a bit, but even still, he wasn't this dominating force he's being made out to be. Educated fans don't think so according to his rank here, players and coaches and whoever votes for All-Stars don't think so (3-time all-star, 1 or 2 less than the least talented offensive player on my team), and he really is by far the weakest player on the court, and he really isn't stopping Bobby Jones. I mean man, you think Parker will be hard to guard? Jones at least according to those stats (and his all-star credentials) is better on O anyway, with team cohesion as well, and that ridiculous height advantage. Russell can contain Malone, sure, but he'll have his hands full cause any one of my team can just come in there. Sure, we don't have a designated "ball-handler" but come on, we can dribble and pass, and we have way more cohesion anyway, anticipation, TEAM D, even more good individual defenders (sure Russell is a beastly D center but he's still only guarding 1 guy and we can still move with, again, anticipation and strategy born of playing together with him, and we have an astounding D-man as well), better offense, better rebounding probably as well...

I guess I'm perturbed that Laimbeer, depending on the judge, is either completely shutting down a way better player or doing "just enough" can do all that, Rodman can shut people down, but my D-guy who is way way better than Laimbeer, has quicks as well as a huge height-reach advantage, is just getting run through. The stats agree, the fans agree, the all-star voters agree, I don't think individuall

 

And just to be sure, I don't mean to be personal or anything. I'm just a bit (perhaps more than a bit) perturbed that there doesn't seem to be a detailed, insightful analysis going on, the term "matchups" is used to cover general vague statements presented as fact, other defenders are treated as lockdown while mine seem not to be in the least, cohesion seems not to matter much if at all, and stats and educated voter opinions seem to be given very low weight unless it matches up with what someone already thought. PER means a whole lot I've noticed in some matchups, but not in mine. Same with D rating. Fan voting is nothing in many instances. Other opinions, same. But maybe it's just me feeling that way. Maybe it's just me.

 

Yak, I hope that at no point in time I gave the impression that I thought Laimbeer was going to complete shut anyone down. As I said in my judgment on that match, I thought even with switches off of him, whomever he ended up with would have a hard time getting much. Not that they wouldn't get anything at all. They're going to be working very hard for every point and earning every bucket. And, no, I'd never call Laimbeer one of the best players of all time. But, along with Dennis Rodman, he's one of the best one-dimensional players of all time. Don't just take my word for it. Listen to the guys he guarded, and listen to the statologists who try to quantify some of what the naked eye sees. I pointed to specific statistical arguments in my decisions and the posts leading up to decisions (specifically, win shares from defense). I've never played down how good Parish is, but you have consistently down played how good Laimbeer is.

I will, however, grant you that I don't pay much heed to "cohesion" in this type of draft. Especially in a two-on-two or three-on-three setting. Maybe in a full team game, but even then, really not much. If you had an extreme case (Malone/Stockton or Pippen/Jordan or something like that), yes, it would carry some more weight. But guys who played together for a couple of years? Not buying it as being that much of a deal breaker.

Edit: All of that said, I'm still not 100% convinced on that match. I've been looking more and more into Parish and reminding myself of his greatness. I'll gladly admit the huge disadvantage a number of players have in that they played before I could watch them, and with players like Parish I never bothered to watch much film, owing to my Boston hatred.

 

i honestly think we're still working out what needs to be taken into account on judgements. i mean, this is the first time this has been done, so obviously there's going to be some kinks concerning it. i'll admit that cohesion isn't factoring maybe as much as it should, but there's also that in a 2v2 there are only so many options. even in a 3v3 it's limited compared to a full team match. that's why coaching in a 3v3 doesn't change things that much: because there isn't all that much a coach can do with no subs or anything. yes, it can help with strategy, but if the other players are just plain better... who wins? or if the other players have a drastically better defender what happens? it creates an imbalance for the side with the better defender to exploit, game over more often than not.

oh, i forgot, pippen shut down magic when he was still near his prime. again, he's going to have trouble with carter? he's already proven he can play against malone. more than once.

anyway, i'll think more, etc, and try and get this to taking into account things that everyone who's making arguments thinks should be taken into account. i'd humbly suggest that inty do it as well, consider most everyone else seems to think cohesion should matter a bit more than we're taking it into account. just a suggestion. but when something is commonly requested, it's definitely within the realm of possibility that the judges are off.

EDIT

and having now read the long post:

i didn't mean that i thought russell was as good on offense as malone, but that he would be bringing the offensive output that malone would be capable of down to the same level as what russell was going to be doing... thereby making that something of a wash. and if russell get's rolled over to nique, well... that won't end terribly well for nique either i wouldn't imagine. really, basically to me because of how i see that duo playing it, it's something of a wash.

i will repeat something though. bill russell slowed down and even stopped wilt chamberlain. think about this. wilt had height on him. he had size. he arguably had quickness and strength. but russell STILL STOPPED HIM. and he still out rebounded against him. i'm sorry, malone is not going to be having that large of an offensive output in this game. russell may not be either, but he will have someone who's better at passing getting him the ball which will help.

but i want to make one thing clear: bill russell is either the best or second best defensive player in the history of the NBA to me. the other? dennis rodman, who guarded whoever needed stopping for the bulls... and that was with two other people who were repeated all defensive teamers. rodman is in the top forty all time most places i look, and that is ONLY because of his defense and rebounding. anyway, that doesn't really matter that much right now.

for jones/parker... i don't think either one of them is going to be stopping the other at all really. parker, however, will be getting more assists because he's an actual PG, and that'll mean he'll create for his group better. and yes, i don't think jones will stop him because once parker figured things out, there was a stretch were almost no one was stopping him. ESPECIALLY no one bigger than him, because he could go under them, as in this case with jones who has at least four inches (pretty sure it was more) on him. think about allen iverson. smaller, but absurdly faster than everyone else, and able to get to the rim and score because of it. as he proved repeatedly against the larger point guards in the league. because of that, the other two will be getting more shots. straight up play, jones will probably come out on top. as beneficial for his team, parker will be doing more towards that. but to repeat, neither person is stopping the other here save for steals and intercepted passes. that's really about it. maybe the occasional charge.

i've already said nique is better than richmond, don't really think i need to say anything else there.

however: you are making a very good point about cohesion. think about the

 

I'm not sure what to make of this for my matchup.

 

one of the all time greatest defenders guarding vince carter, a guy who is soft and cracks under pressure. carter is NOT the difference maker for your team. that's karl malone, who also cracked under pressure. there's a reason he is pretty much known as the all time choker in the nba. they're going up against two guys that aren't. cohesion with two players is not going to overcome a talent and willpower gap that large. sorry.

again, think about the heat. lebron, wade and bosh still got points. and in this case you don't have the other superfluous players to worry about. if these guys take each other in 1v1's... it's over. period. carter's defense, unlike what you suggest, when it matters is not very good. carter is soft. period. you watch him in the playoffs, he folds under pressure. karl malone got stopped by pippen. more than once. karl also folded when he was with the lakers and could have been a difference maker. they aren't winning against two people like duncan and pippen. and in this case kidd is nowhere near the offensive force needed to win this, passing magician or no.

EDIT

here, read this. it's worth reading regardless, but it'll help you understand why i'm picking picking the team with pippen here.

 

Pippen without Jordan was also known for throwing temper tantrums of sorts. When he can't be the guy, he won't be there period, literally, he left the game. Also despite a strong first year without Jordan(which resulted in elimination by the Knicks in the post season as a result of Pippen's actions) the next year they were in danger of missing the playoffs and could barely manage above .500 until Jordan came back. If you want to talk about cracking under pressure Scottie had a Bulls team that was in most ways the same as when Jordan was there in '93 and his antics could be argued to have cost them, despite good numbers. The Knicks brought it hard to them in that series and he failed the team between the ears.









Can Olympic contests be taken into account here as well? Or is that considered exhibition? Same with FIBA contests.

 

i think cohesion is something to consider but i think you can take it too far if that becomes your primary focus. i mean jones and wilkins both played with moses sure, but that doesn't magically make one of them a point guard. and i'm pretty sure whenever they did play with moses there was usually a point guard on the floor. so how cohesive are they going to be if one or both of those guys is trying to play out of position? i think that's a more important factor than whether they logged a couple years with moses or not.

but in other cases like galis and giannakis or payton and kemp i think it can play a more important role.

 

lemme ask this... do you really think you're changing my mind at this point?

and how in the world does pippen sitting out one play in a game they ended up winning result in them losing the series? i'm missing something there. especially considering it didn't happen again, and he played very well the rest of it? explain please. i mean, during the playoffs pippen actually played better than during the regular season. i mean, seriously, you're going to hold one moment in an absolutely amazing career against him? seriously?

different year, different results. that's... kinda just life with sports you know? pippen didn't exactly play worse the following year you know. about one less point a game, one less rebound, fewer fouls, fewer turnovers, and more assists. so... that would suggest that it wasn't pippen that was the problem, at least not the only one, but the rest of the team, non?

and pippen was the second most valuable player on the 92 olympic team. you know, the dream team, with a few people like jordan, magic, bird, barkley, karl malone, stockton, etc. pippen was the second most valuable player on it according to the coach. in that kinda crowd that seriously says something, don't you think?

oh, and that 93 team? wasn't really that great once you got past scottie and jordan. you take away one of the best elements of that team and don't replace it with something even remotely of the same caliber (as if that were even possible in this case) you'd kind of expect SOME drop off wouldn't you? i mean really, that kind of goes without saying.


yes, those are more or less professional events now-a-days anyway.

 

I'm going to try.

Pippen also got a technical after yapping his jaw to Spike Lee, which led to the Knicks sinking free throws that iced the game. The Knicks got into his head and he gave them the series. Pippen was not a guy you could count on without Jordan.

And there is no way with guys like Stockton, Malone, Barkley, Bird, and Magic that you can say that team would still not be the most dominant team in those games, sorry, I can't buy that.

 

ah. i see. what can i say, stuff happens? how many of the top people in the league haven't done something like that at some point? just probably the most inopportune time for it to happen really.

didn't say it wouldn't have been. but that the coach said that WITH THOSE KINDS OF GUYS ON THE TEAM is very, very telling to me.

anyway, i'm done.

 

Well, here's my thing with cohesion, even on 2 on 2. All it takes, the difference between an easy basket and not, the difference between something defended and not (the defended part is more 3 on 3) is knowing when ur teammate is gonna cut without making a signal, knowing where that person is gonna be before they get there, stuff like that. And yes it can happen w/out a PG, obviously the PG has the ball in hand alot, but let's not act like it's some ridiculous amount every time. Plus with fewer people, there's less direction really needed, and that small stuff can really play a key difference.

So, I'm wondering Trimaj, what makes Rodman such a better defender than Jones? I guess that's a decent example of what I mean when I say these generalized vague statements. I mean, I can't analyze that because there's nothing I've seen backing it up.

What is Russell rolling over to Nique? I just didn't understand what that meant. Unless you mean actually moving toward Nique, in which case who is on Malone? Unless he can cover them both, which maybe if they are close enough, but I doubt that happens too much.

And again, I'm still baffled, and this goes along with the Jones question, as to when this "figuring it out" of Parker's occurred. He hasn't really been near a dominant force in the league, he can blow by people great, but what production did this lead to? His assists aren't that great for a PG from what I've seen, and he's been on a team that's really good. His scoring is good but he's not that good a shooter from what I can tell, even if he has improved. I mean, 3-time all-star doesn't seem nearly the unguardability that he's being made out to have, he doesn't have that rep, and I don't see a remarkable production either. So what is the evidence of all this greatness? He's quick and can go under big people, okay. But are those big people as quick as Jones is, or nearly as good defenders? Again, I'd just like some proof or something for why Rodman is such a better defender. The stats I've seen off Jones are comparable and sometimes better than Rodman's. Too bad I can't see his D-win stats right now since the site isn't working for me, but the ones I remember compare favorably, and it's not like his era was unathletic. He had more all-D and all-star appearances than Rodman. Sure he wasn't anywhere close to the rebounder Rodman is, but that way more than D is why Rodman is better. D, he can stick there in D. I ain't seen it.

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&p=26767745 This little poll seems not to think Rodman is any better than Jones, in fact not quite as good at individual D.

http://footbasket.com/2011/04/24/defensive-legendsranking-the-greatest-defensive-players-in-the-nba-history/ This one makes him significantly better, but still has Jones among the best and in individual categories Jones is pretty close to Rodman. And I still say Parker is getting this speed thing to give him way too much credit.

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/slamonline-top-50/2010/09/top-50-tony-parker-no-30/ 30 today according to slam online, and they dog his D and make him sound kinda one-dimensional on O. Kinda past his prime, but they talk about him even previously just like I think of him: A good player, maybe borderline great, but not the force that seems to be described here in this draft. And going under some tall guys is not the same as going under a tall, immensely talented, elite defender who is extremely quick in his own right. Transcribing a lack of quickness from some tall guys to Jones is just lame. And from reading this article, and from what seems to be the case with Parker in general Jones is probably getting stopped way less than I thought, Wilkins even less so unless Russell just dominates everything.

I'd also ask why look in a 3 on 3 or 2 on 2 game at D win shares in a 5-man game vs D-Rating, same with offense. That's largely because they both seem to have inherent flaws for this kind of thing. But yes, cohesion does matter at least a little in 2 on 2 especially when 1 guy is an excellent passer to a

 

Also, if I sit down and look into it, I would be as bold to say Kidd > Pippen[Kidd is better at assists, steals, and rebounds], Carter > Mullin[Carter averaged 20+ PPG for longer, and has a higher APG and RBPG ration(albeit by about one)], and Malone > Duncan(Numbers are close, with points edge to Malone, but Malone only ever had Stockton to consistently help him, whereas Duncan has had good players aroud him pretty much his entire career to either take on the court pressure off of him, or take leadership pressure off of him. Here Malone has Kidd and Carter, and Carter is a better SG than many Malone played with in Utah in his prime I would say]

 

yea... let's try a definite no on that.

who has the rings? oh, that's right. duncan. because malone folded. repeatedly, and on more than one team.

why are you even comparing kidd and pippen? pippen can be the point, if needed, but that's not his greatest strength and you know. apples oranges much?

just... kinda don't really know what to say to those claims other than that's not what the proof of mine eyes hath shown me.

 

Given the fact that you've underrated Kidd's offensive capabilties(or at least that's how I've interpretted it) it's hard to say your eyes are showing you the correct matchup capabilites here. Defensively Kidd beats Mullin and in his prime Kidd averaged around 15 points a game. Mullin's prime 20 can be dropped a bit due to Kidd's defensive capabilities I would say, and Mullin's D is not great enough to drop Kidd's numbers. That would lead to Pippen having to guard Kidd at times to try and compensate. That would mean moving Mullin to Carter, where Carter has a better chance of being Carter, where he has better O-numbers and better reebounding capabilites to help Malone in getting 2nd chance points. Pippen can't guard both Kidd and Carter at once, and to leave Pippen on one would be foolish, Kidd is good enough on Offense and Defense to beat Mullin and force rotation of some sort.

 

.... right... because having pippen rotate to kidd makes perfect sense...

kidd was never that much of an offensive dynamo at any point in his career. i'm not saying he was bad at offense, but he also is not the "greatest thing since sliced bread" either. kidd is decent on offense.

so how's about we go over and take a look at each players win shares...

kidd: 130

pretty good.

Mullin: 93.1

still pretty good.

but what's this? what's their percentages?

kidd: .134

mullin: .139

well now... isn't that... interesting. i wonder what could be causing that big swing in favor of mullinn contributing a greater percentage of wins? but guess what, he is. (really, i DON'T know what is causing that swing, but it's sure as hell there). so that means mullin, over the course of his career, did more to help his teams win than kidd.

oh, and mullin is not precisely a defensive slouch you know. mullin's steals are comparable, he makes more blocks (and is two inches taller than kidd which would help him), and actually turns the ball over less.

kidd, at his best season, scored 18 per game. but that's something of an outlier, and as you said, there's no stretch where he averages higher than about fifteen when you take in a few years. mullin, on the other hand had a stretch of four years where he was averaging 24+ points per game. you add in the surrounding four years and it's still about 23 points per game. so you know what? odds are they're going to be scoring about the same amount in this game, and that's giving kidd HUGE plus side on his defense here. that's a swing in mullins prime of about 10 points per game (really it's more because i doubt kidd will be scoring his average either). alrighty, i'll give you that one.

but here's something to really think about here. kidd has never shot the ball particularly well. he's always, during his best seasons, shot the ball about .400. not particularly terrible, but really that's average. he also has only recently become a .400 at shooting threes, which your version... isn't. he's kidd in his prime. really, kidd has not been a good shooter throughout most of his career. and you can't have it both ways.

mullin, on the other hand, for his career shot the ball .500, and during his prime shot the ball even better. that's a pretty substantial advantage over kidd right there. he also was better at shooting threes.

so again, i'm willing to give kidd a knockdown of about ten points per game from mullins prime because i know that kidd was so good at defense. but that STILL leaves you with a shooting percentage disparity, and kidd scoring fewer points because mullin was decent at defense himself, and with the size advantage is going to be able to cause some troubles for kidd as well. were i guessing AT LEAST a two or three point drop from his average. which still leaves mullin scoring more.

what does all of that say? basically confirming what i ALREADY KNOW AND HAVE SEEN with these players. (have gone and watched some mullin footage). mullin is going to be outscoring kidd. so again, why in the world would you take pippen off of carter ever?

will it happen in transition? sure. but i don't see that being much of an advantage for kidd if it's on something like a fast break. kidd isn't going to be scoring then most likely, but he would likely help get the ball out to someone who could score. that's kidd's greatest strength. but no one on pippen's team is precisely slow.

anyway, on to a more indepth look at pippen/carter, since you won't leave this alone.

first off, pippen has a two inch height advantage here, and a helluva lot longer arms and bigger hands. he was a physical freak, and that was one of the things most noted about him. and he could jump, seeing as, you know, he dunked on ewing in a playoff game. and ewing isn't precisely a slouch now is he?

now, you're saying that carter is vastly better at offense than pippen. but... you know, i'm really not finding anything to prove that. during their primes, carter averaged about 4 more points per game, and that was with pippen being second ban

 

oh, and yak? after thinking about it a lot more, i'm going the other way on that match.

the team with moses, nique and... whoever the third guy was.

 

Lordy, Trim. You'd think this was your match and all that.

You actually did hit a number of points I was gonna touch on, though. Not all of 'em, but plenty. So thanks for that, I suppose. Been working almost nonstop for nearly two weeks here, but I've got some down time in the next few days, so I'll likely be elaborating, just for kicks.

 

basically just trying to show that i, ya know, don't just spout off judgments that i haven't thought about and looked at stats, and so forth. even so, i'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, holds the most weight for me. lot easier to go into this level of detail when it pertains to players i know from firsthand experience and all that though.

 

Now that's a good argument. I think back to recent teams just after major trades and how they play really well at first (think about the Nuggets this year) while the new pieces are getting to know each other. But, then I also think back to teams trying to quickly integrate new pieces together for crunch time (think Jamison to the Cavs with Shaq coming back from injury) and how tough that often is. Judging these like regular season games? Cohesion means less. Judging them like NBA Finals game 7? Cohesion means more. I'll do better to try to factor that in for future matches.

Plus, the more I think about it, the more I remember no one is going to stop in-his-prime and in-shape Shaq.

I'm going to flop to Shaq/Penny in that game.

 

Thanks guys. This is more what I'm talkin bout. Maybe I'll have time to look through other matches and give you more grief (or not).

Um... RJ?