[tkb]

Re: Mikan. There is a huge question mark surrounding him because we never got to see him translate his game into the shot-clock era. First year after the shot-clock was introduced Mikan sat out and the second he only played 37 games averaging 10 points and 8 boards. I'd like to see more to be assured that he would dominate in the shot-clock era too.

[Sunsfan81]

Originally Posted by Dr. Seuss

Sunsfan, your voting style is a little flawed.

If most of your posts, you thought another team was better because of how many HOFers that team had. Rather then how well that team would play together. I'm not going to tell you how to vote. But I think you should take into consideration that guys like Wilt, and Mikan aren't going to dominate like they did during their era.

Then it's pointless to call it a "Legends" draft. Just draft players from the 90s and 2000s. Those old scrubs can't play with today's awesome athletes. Mikan he'd be a backup, Wilt, he'd be no better than Tyson Chandler.

[Seuss]

Originally Posted by Sunsfan81

Then it's pointless to call it a "Legends" draft. Just draft players from the 90s and 2000s. Those old scrubs can't play with today's awesome athletes. Mikan he'd be a backup, Wilt, he'd be no better than Tyson Chandler.

I think Wilt would be fine. But obviously he's not going to average 50/50.

[Sunsfan81]

Originally Posted by Dr. Seuss

I think Wilt would be fine. But obviously he's not going to average 50/50.

I know he wouldn't, but he would still be the best player in the league.

[Diophantos]

Originally Posted by Sunsfan81

Then it's pointless to call it a "Legends" draft. Just draft players from the 90s and 2000s. Those old scrubs can't play with today's awesome athletes. Mikan he'd be a backup, Wilt, he'd be no better than Tyson Chandler.

Straw Man...you're making up ridiculous things we said so that you can tear them down.

Wilt's level of dominance was unmatched; in addition, he dominated a faster era than Mikan, an era that had a shot clock, etc. He also dominated well into his 30's and into the 1970's, an era that's even closer to that of most of the players in this draft. I don't think there's any question that Wilt is one of the very best players in this league.

Mikan has more questions surrounding him. Never dominated with a shot clock, very different era, never dominated to the extent Wilt did, etc. While he was a great player and clearly belongs in this league somewhere, there are questions about how he'd perform against bigger, more athletic players from other eras, in a league with different rules from his own. Don't you think it's fair to ask those questions?

[123fakestreet]

Originally Posted by Diophantos

Don't see that. The backcourt can score and handle, but is small and weak defensively, and not terribly efficient. Sloan is tough, but a poor shooter and undersized at the 3. Malone is great, but I think Mikan has serious question marks with how he'd play in a league with this much speed and athleticism. The bench is pretty solid, I guess.

But, IMO, there's too many question marks--the offensive effectiveness of Sloan and Mikan, the size and defensive deficiencies of the backcourt, Sloan guarding big 3's (Bird, King, etc),...

Sloan's effectiveness on offense is a moot point because it's not necessary for him to contribute offensively. He's one of the best defensive players to ever play the game and his hustle and heart can make up for any difference in size. Out of the teams you selected, the starting SFs were Bernard King, John Havlicek, Glen Rice and Andrei Kirilenko (not including your team which was a homer pick). Rice and King aren't defensive stalwarts, Havlicek is the same height as Jerry Sloan, and Kirilenko isn't as tough and gritty as Sloan.

Questions about Mikan's effectiveness only come because he's an old guy, but back then everybody shot around the 40% mark. Mikan was actually one of the best considering he played before the shot clock came into play. Without a shot clock, the average score was 79.5 points. After the shot clock was brought in, the average was 93.1 points. It was because of Mikan there even was a clock since teams tried to stall so that Mikan would never get a chance to score. He was just that dangerous. They would double or triple team him because he was so good. On this team he won't see double and triple teams because that means Malone will be open, or Bing, or Sharman, or Aguirre.

My starting backcourt may be smaller than expected, but weak defensively? I'm not saying they're a strong defensive backcourt, but I see no reason as to why they would be considered weak. When Aguirre comes into the game, it won't be small anymore, and there's a lot of firepower coming from it to play the inside-outside with Malone and Mikan.

[BadBaronRudigor]

Originally Posted by Dr. Seuss

Sunsfan, your voting style is a little flawed.

If most of your posts, you thought another team was better because of how many HOFers that team had. Rather then how well that team would play together. I'm not going to tell you how to vote. But I think you should take into consideration that guys like Wilt, and Mikan aren't going to dominate like they did during their era.

Of course Wilt would dominate like he did in his era! (homer comment) . . . like everyone else, he is plsying in a league where the talent level has increased tremendously. But Wilt played in one of the two great eras for centers (the other being the Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq era) and faced HOF centers almost half the time; this isn't that far off from the level of center play (much better PF play and help play admittedly) and the greats from his era would probably play closer to their level of dominance than guys from the eras where Shaq and Mourning were the only top centers or Kareem, McAdoo, and Lanier . . . even compared to Ewing's era, expansion meant that while there were as many great centers as in Wilt's day, the 5 great centers were spread among 25+ teams rather than among 10 or so teams. Competition matters more than the supposed evolutionary athleticism impact over a period of less than 50 years.

[Hyperion]

Wow, looks like NY isn't going to the playoffs.... do I get a raise?

[jericho]

Sunsfan can use whatever criteria he wants to vote. I always appreciate his perspective in these debates.

But for myself, I'm assuming that players are pitted against one another as they really were in their primes--with their actual physical gifts and limitations, their actual playing tendencies and habits, and their actual personalities. I don't want to assume TOO much about how they might adjust to each other.

So it doesn't matter a hoot to me who won more rings or awards. If we're just comparing accolades, or levels of dominance within their own eras, to me that misses the point of really trying to imagine how they would fare in head-to-head competition.

So if a GM is going to assume that a player who shot a low percentage decades ago is suddenly a more efficient scorer in this league, he/she had better be prepared to make a reasonable argument for how that happens. Maybe we'll all be persuaded, maybe not.

And I think there is some evidence for the claim that Mikan was a bit of a tugboat whose physical gifts were extremely well suited to the slower pace of the '40s and and early '50s, but who would struggle a bit to keep up against the Celtics of the '60s or the Nuggets or Lakers of the '80s. So in this league I think he's either a tough as nails benchwarmer, or surrounded by players who excel in a grind-it-out, feed-the-post and spread-the-floor kind of attack. Even then he's going to be faced with opposing pivots who are, on average, bigger and perhaps stronger than those he faced during his career.

I assume Mikan still belongs in this league. He'll be a good, tough defender, a decent rebounder, and get some points underneath. I just question whether he's a big difference-maker.

[Seuss]

Voting Results:

1st place counted as 5 points, 2nd counted as 4 and ect.
Team with most points gets the top seed accordingly.

#4 Hawks - 36
#7 Bucks - 16
#8 Pistons - 10
#5 Bulls - 28
#6 Heat - 21
Philadeplhia - 8
Bobcats - 2
Boston - 5
Nets - 1

[Hyperion]

Originally Posted by Dr. Seuss

Voting Results:

1st place counted as 5 points, 2nd counted as 4 and ect.
Team with most points gets the top seed accordingly.

#4 Hawks - 36
#7 Bucks - 16
#8 Pistons - 10
#5 Bulls - 28
#6 Heat - 21
Philadeplhia - 8
Bobcats - 2
Boston - 5
Nets - 1

are the Knicks even in this league?

[jericho]

Originally Posted by IceMan23and3

are the Knicks even in this league?

I really like the rotation of Hayes, McAdoo and Eaton--lots of different looks both on offense (even though Eaton's contribution is minimal there) and on defense. I think Hayes honestly doesn't get nearly enough love on this board. He should be more consistently in the mix in discussions of the best big men in NBA history.

The best I can figure about why your team didn't get more support in this go-round is perimeter defense, which seems to be highly valued judging from the analyses. Price wasn't awful but wasn't a notable defender, and Peja and World are/were mediocre at best. World (I actually remember watching the guy back in the '70s was like a rich man's Vinnie Johnson--he could heat it up at anytime. But as I recall he played a bit like a late-career David Thompson, looking for style points and stats more than really working hard within the framework of a team. He would make a great 6th man in this league...

Anyway, I think your Knicks are better than the standings show, but suspect that there was a concern that they'd get torched by the many great perimeter studs who were more notable two-way players.