RollWithEm

I totally agree that you are fully within your rights as a poster to make whatever reasonable tweaks you would like to make. You have to keep in mind that I am also within my rights to respectfully agree or disagree with your tweaks. For example, I agree that if I were using my own opinion to make these teams, Michael Cooper, Chuck Person, Shane Battier, and maybe even Jay Vincent would have been on their respective draft teams. You suggested all of these additions, and I think that they are fairly reasonable. I, however, don’t agree with your Calbert Cheaney, Sam Dalembert, George Lynch, Byron Russell, Eric Snow, John Salley, and John Long suggestions. I didn’t use my own personal opinion to pick these teams, though. I admittedly didn’t consider the time I have personally spent watching these players. I used only the numbers.

The point is that I use my own personal opinions to make my selection of which team I think will win. That’s the aspect of the conversation where I think personal opinions are most valid, here.


I don’t consider context when making the teams because that consideration would be just as unfair as you think picking teams by the numbers is. I do, however, take context and common sense into account when choosing the winners of the games. That is where you can find my actual opinions, and that is where I would love to hear your reasoned input.

Why not? If I want to know why someone made a decision, am I not allowed to request an explanation? I never hesitated to explain myself when someone questions me. Why should anyone else be any different? I do not in any way hold myself in any higher regard than I hold other, reasonable, well-mannered posters. I only have a problem with people who are 14 years my senior who behave like they are 14 years my junior.

I have seen the vast majority of these gentlemen play at different times in there careers. That fact allows me to try and determine which teams would win in these match-ups. I do not challenge anyone who thinks one team would beat the other based on reasoned debate. I simply challenge people who trust their own eyes only, without considering other factors. Need I bring up Darko, Skeeta, Kedrick Brown, or the thousand other guys who were over-rated based on people’s perception?

I do, very much, respect your opinion on this subject. You are confusing respect with agreement. I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it. You crossed the respect line. I did not. You chose to lower your level of respect for me as a person based on your incorrect assumption that I was giving you my opinion. I was merely disagreeing with your selection of Calbert Cheaney for your draft team. I never disrespected that opinion much less you as a person. I’ll leave that stuff to you.

__________________
But that's just me.

Najee

Actually, you DON'T have the option of agreeing or disagreeing with whom I choose on a hypothetical team, especially when you use a thought process that doesn't take into account anything beyond some math equation. In fact, no one has that option over another person.

You act as if we NEED your approval, which is evident in these ridiculously long posts in you're trying to tell us we're wrong based on some logic that doesn't take into account personal observation, historical context, NBA scout evaluations, raw, basic statistics and common sense. If I don't want Shawn Bradley on MY hypothetical team, it really is none of your business to challenge it. Just like it's none of MY business if you want him on your team.

__________________
"(Mike) Tyson got a bad rap. He's NEVER messed with anyone outside of boxing. ... What normal person has Tyson blown up on?"

TRAGEDY, who made arguably the most inexplicable quote of 2008.

RollWithEm

I'll temporarily forgive this statement since you're used to the newspaper world. Let me just remind you that we are on a forum. The definition of forum is “a medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas.” If there is any place in the world where agreeing or disagreeing (respectfully) with whomever you choose on whatever you choose was acceptable and encouraged, it's this one. Actually, I have yet to break a rule for these boards in our entire conversation. You, on the other hand, have broken 2. I will not, however, report you to the mods because I think you actually have some knowledge to add to this discussion... if you would just hold back on the personal assaults long enough to express your opinion in the face of a modicum of others' commentary, that is.

I'm going to disagree with you here, again. I have never acted like you need my approval. You do not need it. The way you've been arguing sure makes it seem like you want it, though.

I have not tried to show anyone up or tell anyone that their opinion was not valid, yet. You have been the one carrying that torch. Also if you would actually read what I write instead of responding to single, minor points in my posts, you would see that I take nearly every factor possible into consideration when determining who would win these games. It would apparently be beneath you to do me that same courtesy that I extend to you, though.

If you were writing this for your own purposes, you might be right. We are on a forum. We come here specifically for the purposes of challenging each others assertions to try to gain knowledge and have a little fun while we're at it. If you don't want Shawn Bradley on your team, you don't have to take him. I have never said that you had to take him. I merely expressed my reasoning for wanting him on my team ahead of one of the other players you selected for your team. How is that in conflict with anything this site stands for or anything posting on forums in general is all about?

__________________
But that's just me.

Najee

__________________
"(Mike) Tyson got a bad rap. He's NEVER messed with anyone outside of boxing. ... What normal person has Tyson blown up on?"

TRAGEDY, who made arguably the most inexplicable quote of 2008.

BadBaronRudigor

Webber was Zack Randolph with a wimp streak and passing ability . . . the king of empty numbers. He would get you 23/9/3 consistently but this came with some serious caveats. First, Webber disliked contact as much as any big man ever; he had some of the greatest physical talent I've ever seen but he didn't like leaning against big sweaty guys in the post so he would let his man get post position in his sweet spot then try to block the shot with his athleticism. Post scorers could take advantage of him, outside scorers could too since he would hang off them looking for the highlight block or steal. You would have to put him on Chandler/Haywood and Vin Baker was no Vlade Divac to cover for Webber like Divac did for years. Second, Webber drew less fouls than any 20 pt/game scoring big man I ever watched . . . again, he used his athleticism to avoid contact even when going into the guy to get the call or the and 1 was the right play. Third, Webber was a notorious choke artist in the clutch . . . not just at Michigan with the phantom timeout, he was the master of the late fould or turnover to lose the close games. Gasol or Okur should match up well, I'd actually be more afraid of peak Mashburn.

As for Gil blowing hot and cold, Cassell and Van Excel were known for that too, though all three have a decent rep for forcing game winners. Cassell was like a poor man's Arenas, without Gil's athleticism but a similar game; Van Excel was a better defender but a poor average shooter . . . I'd rather rely on Arenas.

Add the superior help defense of the Chandler/Haywood/Battier/etc. team and you should have enough of a defensive advantage to compensate for the higher scoring (but worse defensive) Webber/Mashburn/Baker squad.

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

Najee

__________________
"(Mike) Tyson got a bad rap. He's NEVER messed with anyone outside of boxing. ... What normal person has Tyson blown up on?"

TRAGEDY, who made arguably the most inexplicable quote of 2008.

BadBaronRudigor

With Karl Malone still playing, he, Duncan, and Garnett were clearly the three best PFs at this period; on a different level from the weak defense Webber (as they were their entire career).

Brand and Nowitski were the young turks coming up; Brand playing better defense, Nowitski with more versatile offense . . . both were as good as Webber by the end of this period. This doesn't even include the arguable ones like Antonio McDyess, Shawn Marion, Antawn Jamison. Webber had numbers as good as anyone in this period, he wasn't as good a player, there's a difference (as you were arguing with the OP, lol)

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

RollWithEm

I just realized I got so caught up talking about who would be on the teams that I have never even given my opinion on who would win this match-up.

Jamaal Tinsley is the best true playmaker on the 2001 squad. He might not even get the chance to get off the bench for this team, though. The 1993 team has 3 or 4 better distributors in their top 8 guys. That being said, I don’t think either team has a decided advantage in quickness. Tony Parker might be the fastest player on either team, but Van Exel and Hardaway are easily the next two in that department. I don’t think the 2001 team has much of an answer for Penny, but the 1993 team has no real answer for Jefferson or Richardson. In terms of outside shooting, I give 1993 the edge. Houston, Harris, Rogers, Mills, Van Exel, and Cassell were all above-average from long range at their peak levels. The best outside bomber on the 2001 team is arguably a 7-footer.

In my opinion, both teams have 2 of the top 4 back-to-the-basket scorers in this match-up. Neither team should experience many scoring draughts with all of these competent one-on-one players with the shot clock running down. The 2001 team has the slightly better defensive front court, but I don’t think any of them would slow down Webber. Chandler/Haywood might give Baker some trouble, but neither is quick enough to guard cutters if Webber is in the high post area. I’m really intrigued by the Mashburn vs. Wallace/Jefferson match-up. I think those are the types of defenders that always gave Mashburn the most trouble. I think Mash would probably be rendered relatively ineffective in this one.

I think this match-up will basically come down to two unstoppable forces. Penny and Gilbert were both completely unguardable at peak level. Whichever one of them is hot on a given night will probably determine the outcome of this game. In the clutch, I think putting Gerald Wallace on Penny could be effective in spurts, but who on the 1993 team can guard Arenas? Isaiah Rider was arguably the “best” perimeter defender of this group, but he couldn’t stay in front of Gil.

I’m torn, but I think the 1993 team’s offense would just move smoother. Mashburn and Rider are the only real ball-dominators in their top 10 guys. The 2001 team has Randolph, Arenas, Richardson, and Okur. I guess I give the edge to 1993 in a high-scoring nail-biter.

__________________
But that's just me.

Najee