CelticsStrong
Other Discussions => Off Topic => Games / Gambling / Fantasy Sports => Topic started by: nickagneta on May 29, 2013, 07:26:11 AM
-
CONGRATULATIONS GOES OUT TO:
BEST OFFENSIVE TEAM
(http://cf.juggle-images.com/matte/white/280x280/kansas-city-kings-primary-logo-primary.jpg)
And their GM, Who
-
CONGRATULATIONS GOES OUT TO:
BEST DEFENSIVE TEAM
(http://oliverbigapple.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/lakers-logo.jpg)
And their GM, Yoki_IsTheName
-
CONGRATULATIONS GOES OUT TO:
BEST OVERALL TEAM
(http://cf.juggle-images.com/matte/white/280x280/kansas-city-kings-primary-logo-primary.jpg)
And their GM, Who
-
Wooo! congrats toall the winners!
-
Voting for each panelist was:
freshinthehouse
OFFENSIVE
1 K.C.
2 Philly
3 Milwaukee
4 San Diego
5 Washington
DEFENSIVE
1. Lakers
2. Boston
3. Denver
4. Philly
5, Seattle
OVERALL
1. Philly
2. K.C.
3. Washington
4. Milwaukee
5. Boston
Redz
OFFENSIVE
1. New York Knicks
2. Kansas City Kings
3. Milwaukee Bucks
4. San Diego Clippers
5. Philadelphia 76ers
DEFENSIVE
1. Philadelphia 76ers
2. Dallas Mavericks
3. Boston Celtics
4. Denver Nuggets
5. Washington Bullets
OVERALL
1. Kansas City Kings
2. Seattle Supersonics
3. New York Knicks
4. Philadelphia 76ers
5. Dallas Mavericks
nickagneta
OFFENSIVE
1. Kansas City
2. New York
3. Philadelphia
4. Denver
5. Milwaukee
DEFENSIVE
1. Los Angeles
2. Boston
3. Atlanta
4. Kansas City
5. Denver
OVERALL
1. Kansas City
2. Los Angeles
3. Milwaukee
4. Denver
5. Philadelphia
ronaldo943
OFFENSIVE
1. Kings
2. 76ers
3. Clippers
4. Knicks
5. Bucks
DEFENSIVE
1. Lakers
2. Bullets
3. Nuggets
4. Celtics
5. 76ers
OVERALL
1. 76ers
2. Lakers
3. Kings
4. Bullets
5. Bucks
Roy H.
OFFENSIVE
1. New York Knicks
2. Kansas City Kings
3. Philadelphia 76ers
4. San Diego Clippers
5. Atlanta Hawks
DEFENSIVE
1. LA Lakers
2. Denver Nuggets
3. Boston Celtics
4. Seattle Supersonics
5. Atlanta Hawks
OVERALL
1. Philadelphia 76ers
2. Kansas City Kings
3. New York Knicks
4. Washington Bullets
5. Milwaukee Bucks
POINT TOTALS
OFFENSIVE
Kansas City = 23 pts
New York = 16 pts
Philadelphia = 15 pts
San Diego = 9 pts
Milwaukee = 8 pts
Denver = 2 pts
Atlanta = 1 pt
Washington = 1 pt
DEFENSIVE
Los Angeles = 20 pts
Boston = 16 pts
Denver = 13 pts
Philadelphia = 8 pts
Washington = 5 pts
Atlanta = 4 pts
Dallas = 4 pts
Seattle = 3 pts
Kansas City = 2 pts
OVERALL
Kansas City = 21 pts
Philadelphia = 18 pts
Los Angeles = 8 pts
Milwaukee = 7 pts
Washington = 7 pts
New York = 6 pts
Seattle = 4 pts
Denver = 2 pts
Dallas = 1 pt
Boston = 1 pt
-
Redz i have a question how did the Sonics get second overall when they didnt make your top 5 in offense or defense? Had to ask as that seemed pretty weird
-
Wooo! Thanks for the props redz.
-
Thanks for the votes. Have to say I agree with the winners and our team at 4-5 is likely correct.
-
Best offensive team and best overall. Cool.
-
3rd offensive, 4th defensive, and 2nd overall. Seems like I did fairly well on the whole. Really hoping to get that top overall and was actually surprised to be 4th on defense, but overall a very fun draft and a good time. Thanks to everyone that participated and a big thanks to nick for putting it all together (as well as drafting for me a couple of times).
-
It looks like there was a rough consensus about the top teams in each category, which is good to see. KC and Philly were the two best teams; the Lakers were tops in defense, and KC and NY had the best offense.
The Lakers would have swept the defensive category except for Redz' bias. ;)
-
It looks like there was a rough consensus about the top teams in each category, which is good to see. KC and Philly were the two best teams; the Lakers were tops in defense, and KC and NY had the best offense.
The Lakers would have swept the defensive category except for Redz' bias. ;)
And I think the consensus pretty much bared out what some of the critiques about teams were:
KC getting Magic with the 4th pick (where he probably should have been 2nd, 3rd at worse)was huge as it allowed him an advantage straight from the start and Who rolled with that advantage.
New York, while a great offensive team seriously lacked any defensive presence to make it as anything other than a great offensive team.
Philadelphia had a bit of a difference of opinions mostly due to their back court. Two panelists rated them lower because of that back court and even though Philly got 3 1st place votes for best overall, those 2 votes having them much lower hurt their chance at the best team.
Los Angeles was THE dominant defensive team in this draft but Yoki's insistence on drafting purely defensive minded players early caused that team to be one of the worst offensive teams even though they had the most dominant scoring force in the game.
Seattle selecting Bill Walton instead of Magic Johnson killed any chance they had at one of the awards. I love me some Bill Walton. Respect his game immensely. But he was never healthy when dominant and Magic was dominant and spectacular in 2-3 different ways at different times in his career and when he was dominant, he was healthy.
I think after Bird, Magic, Kareem, Moses, and Dr J. there were no more transcendent superduperstars and its no surprise that the teams at the top of the lists had those players. Without one, you were just fighting to get into the top 3 in a category. This, I think, goes to show what a fabulous job some guys did selecting at the bottom of the first round. That teams like Denver, Atlanta, Washington, San Diego, Boston and Dallas could figure so high in some of the categories is a testament to how good they played this game.
-
Ya, when I was going through trying to decide which years to use for every player I realized I had literally nobody with even average marks from 3. They were all terrible 3 point shooters. I guess my philosophy going in and during the draft was defense. It didn't help that I was born in that era so essentially wasn't able to follow the NBA. It was still fun though. Thanks to all for putting it together.
-
Had a reach with my panic pick in the first round but went with it and got on the leader board for best offensive. Can't complain with that!
-
Congrats to Who. He had a very solid squad this year.
Would've liked a top 3 finish in overall but I guess it wasn't meant to be.
More feedback would've been helpful (not just me, either). Had very little idea what were the pros & cons of my team this year outside of Nick's comments.
-
I finally won one after three years of draft OJT (or a category at least).
Look out folks, the rising GM is out to get you!
-
Hey folks, I know the off-season is a ways away, and I don't know if there is a plan to a do a historical draft again, but I am going to throw out the idea of making the draft eligible season the 93-94 season. This removes MJ from the discussion, so it would give the league a bit more parity.
-
I will once again suggest no one drafted in the top ten is eligible (or something like that). Still get some all time greats, but it does eliminate the vast majority of them which should make the draft much more interesting.
-
I will once again suggest no one drafted in the top ten is eligible (or something like that). Still get some all time greats, but it does eliminate the vast majority of them which should make the draft much more interesting.
I already have the format for this year and , as much as I appreciate the suggestion of doing a Historical Draft without players chosen in the top ten of their draft class, that would just be a lot of work for me to find all the eligible players and would require most participants to have an extremely good knowledge of NBA players that aren't necessarily "superstars".
I just think if we do the draft with all players included more people will participate and there will be an easier time trying to judge the teams, which is hard enough to do already.
This coming year's draft will be starting in the first week of May and the format is one in which the history of the NBA will be broken up into 4 eras. Each team must draft a minimum of 3 players who's year used is from each of the 4 eras.
So the eras would be:
1950-51 to 1971-72
1972-73 to 1985-86
1986-87 to 1999-2000
2000-01 to present
-
I will once again suggest no one drafted in the top ten is eligible (or something like that). Still get some all time greats, but it does eliminate the vast majority of them which should make the draft much more interesting.
I already have the format for this year and , as much as I appreciate the suggestion of doing a Historical Draft without players chosen in the top ten of their draft class, that would just be a lot of work for me to find all the eligible players and would require most participants to have an extremely good knowledge of NBA players that aren't necessarily "superstars".
I just think if we do the draft with all players included more people will participate and there will be an easier time trying to judge the teams, which is hard enough to do already.
This coming year's draft will be starting in the first week of May and the format is one in which the history of the NBA will be broken up into 4 eras. Each team must draft a minimum of 3 players who's year used is from each of the 4 eras.
So the eras would be:
1950-51 to 1971-72
1972-73 to 1985-86
1986-87 to 1999-2000
2000-01 to present
That works for me. I do appreciate all the work you put into this thing. It is a lot of fun year in and year out. Too bad my idea is too much of a logistical nightmare as I think it would be fun. I also think you would be surprised at just how good the teams drafted would be (I mean 1996 alone had Kobe, Nash, Peja, and Big Z).
-
I will once again suggest no one drafted in the top ten is eligible (or something like that). Still get some all time greats, but it does eliminate the vast majority of them which should make the draft much more interesting.
I already have the format for this year and , as much as I appreciate the suggestion of doing a Historical Draft without players chosen in the top ten of their draft class, that would just be a lot of work for me to find all the eligible players and would require most participants to have an extremely good knowledge of NBA players that aren't necessarily "superstars".
I just think if we do the draft with all players included more people will participate and there will be an easier time trying to judge the teams, which is hard enough to do already.
This coming year's draft will be starting in the first week of May and the format is one in which the history of the NBA will be broken up into 4 eras. Each team must draft a minimum of 3 players who's year used is from each of the 4 eras.
So the eras would be:
1950-51 to 1971-72
1972-73 to 1985-86
1986-87 to 1999-2000
2000-01 to present
That works for me. I do appreciate all the work you put into this thing. It is a lot of fun year in and year out. Too bad my idea is too much of a logistical nightmare as I think it would be fun. I also think you would be surprised at just how good the teams drafted would be (I mean 1996 alone had Kobe, Nash, Peja, and Big Z).
In the future maybe a no top 3 drafted player thing will work.