The 52 Draft League - Rosters/Commentary Topic

Russell = Mutombo
Wilt = Kareem

1/2/2023 7:35 PM
Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:17:00 PM (view original):
PBandJ said "That is what intangibles are, sir. They can't be accounted for in a metric. Things like teamwork, fear, and clutch can't be accounted for entirely in a statistic."

Okay, well I am gonna go with win shares, and you can go with "intangibles" that you pull out of your rear end and assign to each player based on your opinion.

Amazing how you guys all assume the player you are arguing for has better so called "intangibles" that the player you are arguing against.




My intangibles guy won 11 rings in 13 seasons and is considered the best teammate in NBA history. Your stats guy won 2 rings in 14 seasons and got traded midseason when no one got traded midseason.

My intangibles guy won 5 MVP awards. Your stats guy won 4.

My intangibles guy is who the league named the Finals MVP trophy after, your stats guy got the Rookie of the Year trophy named for him.

Here's a secret:

All players have intangibles. The problem is your player's intangibles sucked. He was more interested in his stats than he was in sacrificing for the team. This is all well-known by now.

Here's another secret:

Virtually every NBA history expert has the top 5 centers in the history of the NBA has Russell, Olajuwon, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt in some particular order. If your stat doesn't have them as the top 5 then you should consider you are likely wrong. Also, if you have Karl Malone as the greatest PF in history you are really wrong. I mean really, really wrong.
1/2/2023 7:36 PM
Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 7:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by thomcat on 1/2/2023 7:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by samuelyork93 on 1/2/2023 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Yo dude savoy, why so hostile all de time. Chillax me bruddah
Really.

Then again, hostility is savoy's white flag.
Not even close.

https://www.sciencealert.com/swearing-is-a-sign-of-more-intelligence-not-less-say-scientists
What do scientists say about people who pick their nose a lot? Asking for a friend.
1/2/2023 7:39 PM
Posted by riftonapple on 1/2/2023 7:35:00 PM (view original):
Russell = Mutombo
Wilt = Kareem

That doesn’t seem fair to Russell. Russell was at least a good passer.
1/2/2023 7:42 PM
Posted by samuelyork93 on 1/2/2023 6:41:00 PM (view original):
Not getting to all that but I actually put a lot of stock in those Russell MVPS of the 60 and 70s bc it was the players who voted on those not media people or whoever does it now. And I am wise enough to admit Im too dumb to know better about basketball than actual basketball players. Bill won 5 to Wilts 4 which is super close. But Russell in 1962 beat out Wilt, who scored 50 PPG, and the Big O, who averaged a triple double, for the MVP and I think that says a lot about how good Bill Russell actually was.
But opinions are like *****. We all have one, they usually stink, and its not right to go around changing them.
well said
1/2/2023 7:42 PM
PBand J...

Here's a secret:

All players have intangibles. The problem is your player's intangibles sucked. He was more interested in his stats than he was in sacrificing for the team. This is all well-known by now.

Here's another secret:

Virtually every NBA history expert has the top 5 centers in the history of the NBA has Russell, Olajuwon, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt in some particular order. If your stat doesn't have them as the top 5 then you should consider you are likely wrong. Also, if you have Karl Malone as the greatest PF in history you are really wrong. I mean really, really wrong.


Intangibles are BS. And even if they were real, what makes you think you can identify whose are positive and whose are negative?

Maybe intangibles do matter, and maybe the reason the Celtics won so much was their coach. The coach usually gets the credit for having guys play together, rather than a player. The first year that Russell became coach is when their streak of titles ended, and they were crushed in the playoffs by the 76ers. Must have been Russel's, fault, no?

Check the stats from the series.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1967-nba-eastern-division-finals-celtics-vs-76ers.html

What happened to those all important intangibles?

Russell - 11.4 points on 36% shooting. 23.4 rebounds. 6 assists.
Wilt - 21.6 points on 56% shooting. 32.0 rebounds, 10 assists.

Did Russell suddenly lose the intangibles, or did Wilt all of a sudden have them, OR are intangibles total BS. I say the latter.

There are dozens of NBA Hall of Famers who list Wilt as the greatest player ever in youtube videos. Monroe, Frazier and Rick Barry comes to mind. Check the links if you want.


Barry https://youtu.be/MSTt_TxoFVo?t=5

Frazier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t66JVbWdE2E

Monroe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDZ1utgB2-A&t=11s



1/2/2023 8:00 PM
I understand when John Q. Public will believe the hype about Russell, but I would think guys who play this sim and see just HOW HUMUNGOUS the difference between Wilt and Russell is here would not buy into that crap. No amount of intangibles, or voodoo, or will power, or anything else could POSSIBLY make Russell better than Chamberlain once you see them laid out mathematically as you do here.
1/2/2023 8:07 PM
Samuelyork:

And I am wise enough to admit I'm too dumb to know better about basketball than actual basketball players.

Having great athletic ability in no way gives you the ability to analyze the value of other players. That's why so many great players have been dismal failures as team executives and coaches. Elgin Baylor, Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, and many other great players couldn't make the right decisions about players if their lives depended on it.

You need a totally different skill set to analyze the value of players than you need to be a player. Once in a while a guy has both, like Jerry West, but it's exceedingly rare.



1/2/2023 8:12 PM
I'm comfortable saying Wilt is the best.
MJ, LeBron and a very few others could
make a case.
My point is Russell isn't historically overrated.
He was one of the major reasons the NBA
became a legit national sports league.
Plenty of players have better stats.
Russell was a trailblazer and he'd thrive
in today's game.
No I wouldn't draft him in this league nor
would I draft Haywood
1/2/2023 8:18 PM
Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Samuelyork:

And I am wise enough to admit I'm too dumb to know better about basketball than actual basketball players.

Having great athletic ability in no way gives you the ability to analyze the value of other players. That's why so many great players have been dismal failures as team executives and coaches. Elgin Baylor, Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, and many other great players couldn't make the right decisions about players if their lives depended on it.

You need a totally different skill set to analyze the value of players than you need to be a player. Once in a while a guy has both, like Jerry West, but it's exceedingly rare.



Yeah but I bet they know better for than us, or at least this couch analyzer who simulate fake basketball that never could happen because he is under 6 feet, slightly overweight, and is good at basketball except for the dribbling and shooting part haha XD
1/3/2023 5:21 AM (edited)
Posted by seapilots on 1/2/2023 8:18:00 PM (view original):
I'm comfortable saying Wilt is the best.
MJ, LeBron and a very few others could
make a case.
My point is Russell isn't historically overrated.
He was one of the major reasons the NBA
became a legit national sports league.
Plenty of players have better stats.
Russell was a trailblazer and he'd thrive
in today's game.
No I wouldn't draft him in this league nor
would I draft Haywood
Oh-oh.
1/2/2023 8:38 PM
Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 8:02:00 PM (view original):
PBand J...

Here's a secret:

All players have intangibles. The problem is your player's intangibles sucked. He was more interested in his stats than he was in sacrificing for the team. This is all well-known by now.

Here's another secret:

Virtually every NBA history expert has the top 5 centers in the history of the NBA has Russell, Olajuwon, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt in some particular order. If your stat doesn't have them as the top 5 then you should consider you are likely wrong. Also, if you have Karl Malone as the greatest PF in history you are really wrong. I mean really, really wrong.


Intangibles are BS. And even if they were real, what makes you think you can identify whose are positive and whose are negative?

Maybe intangibles do matter, and maybe the reason the Celtics won so much was their coach. The coach usually gets the credit for having guys play together, rather than a player. The first year that Russell became coach is when their streak of titles ended, and they were crushed in the playoffs by the 76ers. Must have been Russel's, fault, no?

Check the stats from the series.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1967-nba-eastern-division-finals-celtics-vs-76ers.html

What happened to those all important intangibles?

Russell - 11.4 points on 36% shooting. 23.4 rebounds. 6 assists.
Wilt - 21.6 points on 56% shooting. 32.0 rebounds, 10 assists.

Did Russell suddenly lose the intangibles, or did Wilt all of a sudden have them, OR are intangibles total BS. I say the latter.

There are dozens of NBA Hall of Famers who list Wilt as the greatest player ever in youtube videos. Monroe, Frazier and Rick Barry comes to mind. Check the links if you want.


Barry https://youtu.be/MSTt_TxoFVo?t=5

Frazier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t66JVbWdE2E

Monroe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDZ1utgB2-A&t=11s



First thing...Barry picking someone as the best is great. He is one of only two or three players that was a bigger douche than Wilt.

Second...You gave me the one time Wilt eliminated Russell. How about the seven other times Wilt got eliminated? What about the season Wilt went 31-49? Russell teams never missed the playoffs.

Third...Saying intangibles are BS prove you know very little about this game, economics (read into the game theory side of econ), or psychology. Intangibles are present everywhere and are critical to success in all environments. The fact that you don't understand this is enough for me to end my part of this conversation. I will no longer feed the troll.
1/2/2023 9:27 PM
chewy3344 – Michael Jordan, Paul George, Bill Walton, Horace Grant, Tree Rollins, C.J. McCollum, Kyle O’Quinn

What I Like: I really like this squad. You have elite defense and rebounding both offensive and defensive. Very low amount of TO's. I can tell this team was well thought out. Over 1000 blocks without Bol or Eaton is impressive too. I like the two elite scorers with a bunch of bruisers to back them up.
Concerns: A lot of fouls. For a defense like this though, that sacrifice had to be made. Team EFG is a little low but having MJ do most of the work will help that. Assists and 3's are on the lower end but with the way you have built the defense/rebounding and the lack of TO's, I don't see it hurting too much.
Conclusion: I see this team as a title contender. I look for it to at least reach the final 4.

dontburnearl – Karl-Anthony Towns, Luka Doncic, Marcus Camby, Jimmy Butler, Donyell Marshall, Chris Anderson, Thaddeus Young

What I Like: This team is well rounded but does have some holes. You should be pretty efficient in scoring and have a good A/T ratio. I feel like Marshall was a perfect pick based off what you had at the time. You needed a good defender who can stretch the defense. Anderson and Camby go well with Luka and Towns. Elite rebounding. Fouls and TO's do not scare me here.
Concerns: The defense is a little more on the weak end than strong. You do have some great defenders in Camby, Anderson and Marshall but Towns, Luka and most of your bench are going to be liabilities. You are going to have to run and gun and outscore your opponents for the most part. Is Butler coming off the bench? I do not see him mixing well with Luka and Towns in the starting lineup usage wise. This team might have an overall usage problem. Most of your guys over 19%.
Conclusion: I think this team can win over 40 games but I am not sold on them automatically making the playoffs. With the great rebounding and Luka/Towns offense though, I would not be surprised if they do better than I think.

Midge – Dwight Howard, Jrue Holiday, Tyrese Haliburton, Robert Williams, Montrezl Harrell, Bogdan Bogdanovich, Domantas Sabonis

What I Like: This is the best shooting team iv'e seen so for. Super high EFG. Your 3 point shooting % is elite. I like that you have multiple scoring options instead of a big 2 or 3. You are right up there with best of the rebounding teams and your defense does not totally fall off a cliff after like 3 guys.
Concerns: Holy fouls. Most i've seen so far. At least you do have a nice amount of blocks but you might be giving up too many FT's. For some reason Dwight has had bad luck in these draft leagues, but i do think you did good to surround him with great shooting.
Conclusion: Hard to dislike this team. I see it as a definite playoff contender.

ysw128 – Chris Paul, Ben Wallace, Chauncey Billups, Andrew Bogut, Kevin Love, Lonzo Ball, Emeka Okafor

What I Like: I love me some Chris Paul. Thats who I wanted. He and Billups make a great PG combo. You have a nice amount of 3's and you are where you want to be with rebounding. A/T ratio is great with your TO's being pretty low.
Concerns: Your EFG is not really that impressive. It might be that you have 4 guys that really kill you on foul shots, but also I have Kevin Love as your best volume shooter at 55%. I think Baron Davis and Siakam are taking too many shots away. Actually I think you have to alter your team as Siakam was drafted by riftonapple. Your defense is about middle of the road. It will suffer when Ben and Paul are on the bench.
Conclusion: This team is good enough in just about all areas to make the playoffs, but I would not be surprised if the shooting and ok defense holds it back.

PirateSteve – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Tyson Chandler, Eric Bledsoe, Bobby Portis, Mikal Bridges, Robert Parish, Brian Taylor

What I Like: Getting Kareem at 11 was nice. I feel he should be in the top 6. I got Parish in the 6th too. I have great EFG and super low TO's. I would say I have a top 10 defense with only Portis and Parish being below 70 out of my big minute players.
Concerns: Low assist numbers and a lower amount of threes than I would like. I think assists are not that important anymore but I could probably use at least 200 more. Could always use more rebounds but I have a competitive amount. Ive never used or seen anyone use Brian Taylor before but I liked his numbers. I probably could have picked him after the draft.
Conclusion: I think I have a playoff squad here. I think I did a good job of hitting every category you need to to succeed. If I get into the final 4, I will call it a win.

gerryred – Karl Malone, Damian Lillard, Nikola Vucevic, Jonas Valanciunas, Kenneth Faried, Larry Nance, Jr., Derek Harper

What I Like: Inside outside scoring duo of Malone and Dame. I was thinking of doing the same with Kareem and Dame but Dame didn't drop to me. I like everyone of your draft picks and love where you got Faried. I think he was a must for this team on terms of balance. Your A/T ratio might be the best i've seen so far and you have a good amount of threes.
Concerns: Your defense is a little weak. Only really Malone, Tinsley, and Harper will make a difference. You are just a tad light on rebounds. Not horrible, but I would like to see more. Only 400 plus blocks is probably the least i've seen. It's not the most important stat, but having more than less is probably more ideal.
Conclusion: My gut says you can make the playoffs. I think you have a really efficient offense and just enough of everything else to get there. However we could be seeing a first round exit against tougher foes.

More Tomorrow.....
1/2/2023 9:28 PM
Great read.
1/2/2023 9:34 PM
Posted by PBandJ on 1/2/2023 9:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 8:02:00 PM (view original):
PBand J...

Here's a secret:

All players have intangibles. The problem is your player's intangibles sucked. He was more interested in his stats than he was in sacrificing for the team. This is all well-known by now.

Here's another secret:

Virtually every NBA history expert has the top 5 centers in the history of the NBA has Russell, Olajuwon, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt in some particular order. If your stat doesn't have them as the top 5 then you should consider you are likely wrong. Also, if you have Karl Malone as the greatest PF in history you are really wrong. I mean really, really wrong.


Intangibles are BS. And even if they were real, what makes you think you can identify whose are positive and whose are negative?

Maybe intangibles do matter, and maybe the reason the Celtics won so much was their coach. The coach usually gets the credit for having guys play together, rather than a player. The first year that Russell became coach is when their streak of titles ended, and they were crushed in the playoffs by the 76ers. Must have been Russel's, fault, no?

Check the stats from the series.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1967-nba-eastern-division-finals-celtics-vs-76ers.html

What happened to those all important intangibles?

Russell - 11.4 points on 36% shooting. 23.4 rebounds. 6 assists.
Wilt - 21.6 points on 56% shooting. 32.0 rebounds, 10 assists.

Did Russell suddenly lose the intangibles, or did Wilt all of a sudden have them, OR are intangibles total BS. I say the latter.

There are dozens of NBA Hall of Famers who list Wilt as the greatest player ever in youtube videos. Monroe, Frazier and Rick Barry comes to mind. Check the links if you want.


Barry https://youtu.be/MSTt_TxoFVo?t=5

Frazier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t66JVbWdE2E

Monroe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDZ1utgB2-A&t=11s



First thing...Barry picking someone as the best is great. He is one of only two or three players that was a bigger douche than Wilt.

Second...You gave me the one time Wilt eliminated Russell. How about the seven other times Wilt got eliminated? What about the season Wilt went 31-49? Russell teams never missed the playoffs.

Third...Saying intangibles are BS prove you know very little about this game, economics (read into the game theory side of econ), or psychology. Intangibles are present everywhere and are critical to success in all environments. The fact that you don't understand this is enough for me to end my part of this conversation. I will no longer feed the troll.
Take your ball and go home!
1/2/2023 10:18 PM
◂ Prev 1...13|14|15|16|17...20 Next ▸
The 52 Draft League - Rosters/Commentary Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.