RollWithEm

For those of you who aren’t up to speed on the tournament so far, check out this thread for the rules.

Here’s one of those quirky match-ups where neither team has a top-tier defender to speak of. The best defensive player on either team is probably Richard Jefferson. This will come down to who can outscore who. Without further adieu, here’s the 3/6 game in the LaRue Martin region.

(3) 2001
G Gilbert Arenas
G Joe Johnson
F Gerald Wallace – 2006 – 21.3 PER
F Zach Randolph
C Pau Gasol
-------------------------------------
G Tony Parker
G Jason Richardson
G Jamaal Tinsley – 2005 – 26.1 Ast Rate
F Richard Jefferson
F Mehmet Okur
C Tyson Chandler
C Brendan Haywood – 2008 – Most Improved Player Candidate

VS.

(6) 1993
G Sam Cassell
G Penny Hardaway
F Jamal Mashburn
F Chris Webber
C Vin Baker – 1997 – 20.1 PER, 21 PPG, 10 RPG, 3 APG, 1.4 BPG
-------------------------------------
G Nick Van Exel
G Allan Houston
G Isaiah Rider
G Lucious Harris
F Rodney Rogers
F Chris Mills
C Shawn Bradley

This looks like a pretty tough one to call. One team has all the depth and the other has the better starting 5 (arguably). Let’s hear what you think.

__________________
But that's just me.

BadBaronRudigor

Richard Jefferson? Gerald Wallace, and of course Brendan Haywood and Tyson Chandler are all superior defenders. I'm not even sure Randolph makes my rotation (or, if there is an effort guy you left out, makes the team at all); I'd have Chandler and Haywood at center, Gasol and Okur at PF with Gerald Wallace able to swing to the 4 when they go small. I'm even leaning to starting Tony Parker over Gil Arenas although, as a Wiz fan, that's close to heresy.

Chandler/Haywood
Gasol/Okur/Radmanovich
Wallace/Jefferson/Battier
JJohnson/Richardson
Arenas/Parker

This team has much better defense and balance with Radmanovich instead of Randolph since he will be used only as a late replacement/3pt specialist anyway (Gerard Wallace would be the 5th big). Two tough decisions (Randolph wasn't that tough) . . . Arenas v. Tony Parker decided because Arenas is a primary player, game breaker, and outside shooter. Okur v. Gasol was even tougher but went with the post scorer since Chandler isn't that much of a threat.

I'd take the modern team over the 98 one because the front line of Baker, Weber, and Mashburn has great talent but no heart; those aren't the guys you want at your back in a tough spot. That and putting smarter/harder working players in instead of Randolph should have the 2001 boys playing more team ball than the flashy all-about-me 98 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.

RollWithEm

I’m really glad you brought this up. I agree with you that Haywood is an excellent defender. If you want to claim he is better than Richard Jefferson defensively, I won’t dispute that with you. You might be right. I will dispute the other two, though.

First, Gerald Wallace is a very over-rated defender. I’ve seen somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 Bobcat games in the last few years. In several of these, I’ve focused very intently on Gerald Wallace because he’s been on my lat few fantasy teams. I’m not going to say he’s a sieve defensively because he does a decent job of moving his feet and staying in front of his man, but his help defense is almost nonexistent and he gambles way too much. I would venture to say that he’s the 3rd best defender in his own starting line-up. If you think he’s a better defender than Richard Jefferson, I think you’re probably basing that assessment on public perception or limited personal experience.

More importantly, calling Tyson Chandler a superior defender borders on being offensive to me. Yes, I know he came out of high school with the hype of being a great shot-blocker and defender who might one day develop an offensive game. I know his reputation in Chicago supported the hype. He was supposedly a great shot-blocker (on and off ball) and a dependable defensive stopper. This perception is part of the reason I was so excited when I found out he was coming to my hometown Hornets. I thought he would be exactly the type of presence this team needed in the paint.

So far he’s played in just under 150 games with the Hornets. I’ve seen about 30 of those in person and another 90 to 100 on television. In his first 50 or so games with the Hornets, he was amped up defensively. He patrolled the paint pretty effectively. His on-ball defense wasn’t exactly stellar, but his help defense was always on point. He communicated well with his teammates and hustled to spots. In the last 100 games, however, he’s fallen off remarkably. I can’t believe how many uncontested lay-ups he gives up to lesser players. He refuses to move his feet. He only hustles for loose balls if it’s the last 2 minutes of the game. He almost never communicates, and his help defense has become borderline atrocious. The fact that some people still consider him a “superior defender” actually boggles my mind. If he’s a better defender than Richard Jefferson, then he must also be a better shooter than Michael Redd. If it wasn’t for his above average defensive rebounding prowess, I would almost prefer if he didn’t even come down to that end of the floor. He spends more time bumping into his teammates that are trying to defend than he does actually playing defense.

I’m glad you gave me the opportunity to get that off my chest.

I think you are basing this statement on current-level Zach Randolph for the NY Knicks. I wouldn’t put that Randolph on this team either. 2006 Zach Randolph with 22 PER and 17.5 Reb Rate is more than deserving of a spot on this team, IMO. In fact, he’s the 3rd best player on the team. Outside of Gil and Pau, no one else on this whole roster impacts a game like 2006 Zach Randolph. Who else on this team will get you 24 PPG, 10 RPG, and 2 APG while shooting 47% from the field and 82% from the line? If you think for a second that any level Gerald Wallace, Mehmet Okur, Jason Richardson, or Tony Parker would be more effective in this style of tournament than 2006-level Zach Randolph, you’re kidding yourself. He was the type of back-to-the-basket force that coaches drool over. You say the team has more balance with Radman instead of Randolph. That’s like saying that you’d rather have prime Trenton Hassell over prime Ray Allen depending on what the rest of your roster looks like. It’s completely absurd. Randolph’s 2006 season was easily one of the top 5 seasons put up by a member of this draft class, and that’s all I’m interested in, here.

Wow. I can hardly believe what I’m reading. Sure, I know that Gil is sometimes selfish. I know that his teammates might not always get along with him. I know that a more unselfish guy might be a better fit for this team. The problem is that Tony Parker is JUST AS SELFISH as Gilbert Arenas. They’re actually pretty similar players. The only difference is that Gilbert is better at every single aspect of basketball except pure speed. He’s a better shooter, a better scorer, a better defender, a better creator, and arguably even a better finisher at the basket. He’s better in the clutch and he has better vision. He’s the better player, but is he the better fit for this team? I’d say, yes he is by a large margin. I mean we’re not talking about John Stockton: we’re talking about Tony Parker. Parker’s own coach barely trusts him.


You really think Calbert Cheaney would be the 6th man on this team? Let’s look at his best season, shall we? 1994 was the only year in his career he averaged over 16 PPG. It was the only season he shot over 80% from the line. It was the only season he averaged over one 3P made per game. He shot 45% from the field and 34% from three. His PER was a career high 14.2 and his TS% was 53. His defensive rating was a paltry 113. I’ll assume this is the prime-level Cal Cheaney you’re trying to include on this team.

It seems that you think he’s in the same class as Allan Houston and better than Isaiah Rider, Nick Van Exel, and Lucious Harris. Allan Houston had 9 seasons with a better TS%, 9 seasons with a better defensive rating, 8 seasons with a better PER, 8 seasons with more PPG, 11 seasons with a better FT%, and 11 seasons with a better 3P%. I would actually argue that Allan Houston’s worst seasons as a professional were better than Calbert Cheaney’s best seasons.

Nick Van Exel is in a similar boat. His worst seasons were right at or above Cheaney’s best seasons. He had PERs above the league average (15) during 9 different seasons in his career. Cheaney’s best asset as a player was his shooting, and Van Exel shot better than he did from three and from the FT line consistently throughout their respective careers. The fact that his Ast Rates and Defensive Ratings put Cheaney’s to shame is just gravy in this argument. The two players were not nearly on the same level.

Isaiah Rider is an interesting case. He wasn’t consistent throughout his career, but his peak was far better than anything Cheaney produced. He was never a great defender, but compared to Calbert he was Gary freaking Payton. I included him on this team because he’s the only guard in his draft class with any real post-up game to speak of.

Lucious Harris is a guy who is actually more around Cal Cheaney’s level. They were both hired gun-type guys who could get you some instant offense and very little defense. The reason I chose Harris was that his 2002 season was slightly better than Cheaney’s 1994 season. Keep in mind, I’m looking only at absolute peak production.

I’m open to debating which players I’ve put on these teams, but Georghe Muresan? Cal Cheaney? Can you really make a reasonable argument for their inclusion or are you just pulling this stuff from your anecdotal knowledge of these players and their name recognition?

Can you explain to me how any season Sam Dalembert and/or Troy Murphy has played is better than the year Brendan Haywood has been having this season? Have you paid attention to the Wizards at all this year?

__________________
But that's just me.

BadBaronRudigor

Cheaney wasn't a bad defender, a little weak for the three, a little slow for the 2 but willing and with good basic skills. I wouldn't put Isiah Rider on my high school team; just not worth the hassles. As for Parker v. Arenas, Parker is a more skilled defender and a guy who was the finals MVP, good PG to have though nowhere near as dominant as Arenas which is why I went with Arenas. On the Wallace and Chandler issues, you may be right. I don't watch that much ball anymore, catching about 20 Heat or Wizard games a year . . . when I've watched them they both seemed to be very active players with nice defensive skills; I liked Jefferson's explosion off the bench more than I thought it was useful in a lineup with scorers like Arenas, JJ, and Gasol . . . figured Wallace would be more likely to accept the role of defensive stopper and 4th option. AS for Randolph, I knew that was controversial, he has the best numbers of any front line player but his defense and passing skills are poor and his best seasons combined with some bad attitude, underachieving Portland teams so again, with players like Gasol and Okur in his spot, I don't want to deal with his issues like I would if I needed his game.

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

Najee

I listed the bench players alphabetically, not by their level of importance. Calbert Cheaney was listed first because his name was the first surname alphabetically.

Compared to Brendan Haywood, Samuel Dalembert is more active, is a better career scorer and rebounder, can block shots more than having them funneled to him and can play the power forward slot if needed. Considering you're the same person who would rather have Walter Berry for your Class of '86 team than Chuck Person, I would say replacing Hawyood with Dalembert is much more sensible.

__________________
"(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

You have to keep in mind these are not high school teams we’re talking about. We’re talking about grown men. Each one of these teams is going to have some tough battles in this tournament. I don’t think you just want to start casting guys off because you don’t like their personality or their game. If they produce better than the next guy, they deserve their spot. Are you going to throw out Ron Artest? Rasheed Wallace? Dennis Rodman? Charles Barkley? How deep does this go? I think the best peak-prime players should be on the team, plain and simple.

You will have a very, very tough time convincing me of this.

Naming him Finals MVP over Duncan was a joke. Who did he play against in that series? Boobie Gibson? Damon Jones? Eric Snow? None of those guys have the foot speed to defend a guy like Parker. One series does not make a player. Just ask Austin Croshere.

Now, I like where your head is at. Parker’s not a great PG. He’s a good PG. Arenas is a dominant force.

Okur is no substitute for Randolph. Gasol is probably more effective in the post than Randolph, but why throw away your second best post option just because you have a better one? If I could have Steve Nash on my team but I already have John Stockton, I wouldn’t just discard Nash or stash him away on my bench. I’d play them both together when I could get away with it, but the rest of the time I would always have one of them on the floor. They have unique skills that you just can’t get anywhere. Gasol and Randolph are like that. You never know which teams you’ll come up against in this type of tournament. You’ve got to keep all the options you can around. I’m not saying to throw Okur out. He’s got unique skills as well. All I’m saying is that Randolph should have a large role on this team: so should Okur AND Gasol.

What a great job you do at side-stepping the real issues at hand and answering only the easy questions that you want to answer. The bottom line is that you pick your teams off of the limited amount of time you have personally spent watching these players and off their individual name recognition. That’s the only possible explanation I can see for putting Calbert Cheaney on a draft team ahead of Shawn Bradley and Rodney Rogers. A lot of people have put in a lot of time watching games and recording stats so that we don’t have to guess at which players produced more in their careers. We don’t have to rely on our own memories of marginal players like these.

The fact that we are even having this discussion proves the point I made in the initial thread. The only way to eliminate issues of personal preference is to go strictly by the numbers.

Also, it’s easier to pick a team when you list 13 players instead of 12.


Replacing Haywood with Dalembert doesn’t add anything to this team, but at least they are the same caliber of player. I don’t have as much a problem with this as I do with some of the other issues you’ve raised. Much like the decision between Cal Cheaney and Lucius Harris, I had to make a tough choice between Haywood and Dalembert for the last spot on this team. I would rather Haywood, but I don’t fault you much for preferring Dalembert. My problem is that you prefer Troy Murphy to Haywood and you prefer Cheaney to Bradley and Rogers.

__________________
But that's just me.

Najee

Brenda Haywood's career season is essentially the same season and plateau where Samuel Dalembert has been for the past three seasons. Troy Murphy has put together five seasons better than what Haywood has done, IMO, including three seasons where he has averaged a double-double.

I would rather have Calbert Cheaney over Shawn Bradley, who best can be described as a bust. For most of his career as a starter, the 7-foot-5 Bradley was a sub-45 percent shoo