beanfigger

That spin move though...sick.

Up until last year when KD was ridiculous, I thought Melo was the best pure scorer in the league. I actually think this is right about the perfect spot in the draft to take him, but the value looks a lot better when you consider all that went before him too high.

Ha. These teams are ridiculous when you have the luxury of drafting Carmelo as a sixth man. There are a bunch of current players that have already gone who shouldn't have been picked before Melo.

Nice. Had Walton still been there for my next pick, I would have likely gone with three straight centers. I'm fairly certain he would have been my pick if Reed was gone.

I just saw that TNT did a "Next Ten" list ten years after the Top 50 was released as sort of an unofficial addition of ten players to that list. We have already selected 9 of the 10 from that list (Bryant, Duncan, Garnett, Iverson, Kidd, McAdoo, Miller, Payton, Wilkins). The widdles that group down in stages from 32 nominees to 21 (Nowitzki, Nash, Wade among that first cut) and finally from 21 to 10 (Dumars, James, King, McGrady, Rodman part of the final cut). So I guess you could say we've selected 51 of what was considered to be the 82 greatest players of all time as of 2006. Only 7 from off that list have been selected, and at least 3-5 of those have played what can be considered some of the best portions of their careers post-2006.

Other boring analysis from bean: My thoughts on the best values by round: -Round One - Oscar Robertson (pick 11). I know Magic falling to seven was surprising, but getting perhaps the greatest all-around talents after every other team made a choice is crazy. -Round Two - Elgin Baylor (pick 18). The West pick was considered, as well, but Baylor gets it because it was a later selection. -Round Three - John Havlicek (pick 28). The Jazz players and also Hayes were great values, but 28 for Havlicek is unbelievable. -Round Four - Clyde Drexler (pick 33). I know this was the first pick in the round, but judging by the perimeter players selected ahead of The Glide in the previous round, this pick was crazy value. Pistol Pete was also great value later. -Round Five - Bob Cousy (pick 50). I was thinking it would be Mikan, and I was hoping to snag Cousy after, which would have been back-to-back rounds with best value, but Cousy was taken just after me. Cousy at 50 is borderline grand theft. I'm not gonna do biggest reaches, but I will say this: If you select a player who isn't a lock for the Hall of Fame in a draft like this, especially in the first five rounds, it's a reach. That's under each owner's discretion (unless of course you selected older players who haven't been elected Hall of Famers after years of eligibility), but if you have any hesitance about whether or not your guy will go straight to the hall as soon as he's eligible, it's a reach for this game. I know we're doing the whole "best stretch" thing, but I don't think there should be a place for non-Hall of Famers in an all time draft with only 132 players in it.

Here's some boring analysis on our draft thus far: Before the '96-97 season, the NBA released it's all time Top 50 Players list in celebration of their 50th anniversary of league play. This list was voted on by an extensive list of ex-players, coaches, executives, analysts and sportswriters. The youngest player named to the list was Shaq, so his draft year is a great place to draw a line in this analysis. We've selected 57 players as of this post, including 34 from the Top 50 list. There have also been seven selections of players drafted before Shaq who were not named to the Top 50. This goes to show difference in opinion, and some players in this group still had some excellent years of play and maybe should have been included in this list in the first place. Five of these players were very prominent in the 90s, so it also makes sense for a group of contemporary fans to select them based on their fanhood and the memories they have watching these players growing up. Sixteen players have been selected in our game who were drafted after Shaq*. I guess that's to be expected, but it is a much higher rate of selection from the last 18 years compared to the first 50. One of these players was even selected twice. This is what I mean by the contemporary bias. It was even more lopsided in rounds 3 and 4, where 10 of these 16 players were selected. That means half of our collective picks during that span were players from the last 18 years from a league that has a history of almost 70. I'm not saying any of these picks are bad because many of these players certainly deserved to go in a draft like this; I just think many went a little early. (*I counted Alonzo Mourning in this group because, technically, he was drafted after Shaq...one pick after Shaq.) Note: Three teams took their first four players from the Top 50 list (Inqui, Birdest, allblackraven), but all three went contemporary with their most recent selection. SAM did the exact opposite, drafting four from off the list (one of which was actually drafted before Shaq) and then picking a player from the Top 50 in the fifth. So far, I believe I'm the only one with at least five players from the Top 50.

Thanks for the help buddy. Since I waited so long for a center, I figured I might as well double up. Two top ten ones, in my opinion.

You got insane value with those last two picks. Awesome choices. Cousy at the point after waiting so long? Ridiculous.

Ten centers taken before me, and I still get the leader of the NBA's first dynasty? I'll take it.

Shall I wait for him to come back and change his pick?

Wade taken twice in the top 50 picks, huh? Contemporary bias is thick.

Savvy move to get some defense on your offensively explosive squad, Truth.

You available to take my board for a while. I'm out of it today and may turn in early.

Great value pick, as well.

This I never argued. I was stating it's hard for me to rank Paul ahead on the all time list at the moment, but I do know he's better. Their has to be more to it than just talent when you're ranking players, otherwise Randy Moss is the greatest receiver ever. Paul can still get there, but he's not there, yet. I also think Kidd raised the level of play of his teammates and team as a whole more than Paul, but Paul is improving tons in that area lately.

I'm sorry you feel this way.

Except you were comparing Wilt to Russel from the same era, never mind. Not starting that again. You were crushed in that debate by Truth. I've won all the debates we've had, at least by popular opinion, and the only one I remember having with you that was actually proven is when you (and others) and I kept telling me about the short, cheap deal Pitta was going to be lucky to get. I'm not getting testy. I actually enjoy being the Stephen A. to your uncanny Skip Bayless.And I'm going to bed now and forgetting about this, so you're free to tell your friends you won this one, too.

I didn't say after Kidd; I said without Kidd. And are you giving the numbers those guys have with Kidd? Look at without him. He inflated their numbers, whereas, West and Chandler were still all-stars without Paul. Anyway, it doesn't matter. You're a walking contradiction between debates. Wilt's numbers should be looked at with a grain of salt, but Paul's are the determining factor. Nowitzki's playoff success helps put him over the top of Malone, but Kidd's are misleading and and shouldn't be weighted as heavily. Whatever point helps your side of the debate.

Longevity plays a big role in my all time rankings, though that may not affect this type of draft as much. Jefferson and Martin definitely better than Chandler and West? That's far from how I see it, especially since the former duo did very, very little without the aid of Kidd, and the latter had success in their careers post-Paul. What did Kittles do without Kidd leading him?

Miller was a great scorer and feared opponent for most of his career. His true value was in his shooting ability, specifically in the clutch. If you couldn't have Jordan taking your last second shot for you during the 90s, it'd be hard to find another name more coveted than Miller. Paul's numbers are great, but during the best stretch of Kidd's career, his numbers translated into great playoff success. That is the big difference I see. I don't see Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson being any better than Tyson Chandler and David West in New Orleans with Paul, and certainly not more than what he is playing with now. I'd rather have Paul on my team, honestly, for something like this, but there is not way I see him being above Kidd in terms of all time ranking at the moment.

This all begs to differ: NBA Champion: 201110-time NBA All-Star: 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 20106-time All-NBA:First Team: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004Second Team: 20039-time All-Defensive Selection:First Team : 1999, 2001, 2002, 2006Second Team: 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007NBA co-Rookie of the Year: 1995 (with Grant Hill)NBA All-Rookie First Team: 1995NBA All-Star Skills Challenge champion: 20035-time NBA regular-season leader, assists per game: 1999 (10.8), 2000 (10.1), 2001 (9.8), 2003 (8.9), 2004 (9.2)3-time NBA regular-season leader, total assists: 1999 (539), 2001 (753), 2003 (711)NBA regular-season leader, total steals: 2002 (175)You don't make first team all NBA five times without being the best at your position, not to mention four times first team all defense. This doesn't even take in to account the fact that he is way up on the list in career triple doubles, including second all time in the postseason triple doubles (until LeBron someday passes him).

I never said Paul can't do any of the things I mentioned for Kidd. I leave that stuff up to you as our resident legend basher on here. I guess if you are going back to the "stretch of a career" and disregard the importance of postseason succes (both things you consistently argued against on our last debate), then Paul is right up there. I'm not ignoring anything. Shooting is one aspect of an all-around game, and it is something Kidd did improve upon though it was the weakest part of his very impressive overall game.

What about ten games? Lin-sanity!

Kidd may not have ever been a feared shooter, but that wasn't his game (though he has made the third most three point shots in the history of the NBA). He's one of the best rebounding point guards ever, and fantastic defender and a true floor general and playmaker who could set up anyone. He ranks amongst the best players ever in terms of total assists and steals. He led a Nets team to the finals a couple times, and then teamed up with Dirk to help push him over the top. Paul has the makings of getting to his level someday, but it will take a very long period of sustained elite numbers to get there, and some success in the postseason wouldn't hurt. I think he'll get there, but I cannot put him on Kidd's level, yet, unless we're talking about athletic skills and potential, which mean little without the end gain.