TNT: Ultimate NBA All-Star Fantasy draft

I don't know much about a lot of the older players, but for me at first glance it looks like Miller's and Kerr's teams are the best.

 

I think Steve Kerr, Kenny Smith and Reggie Miller created the best teams. Just eyeballing the teams, it's hard to pick between those three.

Worst team is probably Kevin McHale's (big surprise). But I have to give him credit for at least choosing to use Boston for his homer picks rather than Minnesota. Garnett was probably his easiest pick (you mean I can have a player who was on BOTH teams??).

Credit also to Kenny Smith for picking himself. I like that.

 

Webber easily picked the best team with Wilt Chamberlain, the Human Triple double Oscar Robertson, Thomas, Gervin, Wilkins, and Ewing... no one would be able to beat that team.

 

Kerr and Miller picked the best teams

 

What. A. More. On.

It makes me sick that that Blow Hard gets paid for his basketball "knowledge."

 

McHale's team has the most titles, easily, but he should've taken Russell before Kerr got him to make a perfect Celtics team (and DJ, too). Reggie's list is awesome, but light on forwards (1?!). Ain't that just like a 2-guard? Gotta have a more complete team. Maybe play 'Zo at pf? Chuck has a badass front-line, but needs more point guard help. Webber has some major scorers, but maybe needs more 'd' in the forward spot. Gotta go with Kerr, McHale, Webber and Miller in a four-team playoff. I wanted to go with Smith, but he loses points for picking himself and Hawkins. I wanna say McHale & Miller would meet in the finals, but damn, it's tough! I understand how Chuck thought they were picking specifically for an All-Star game, cuz that's what he does is get confused by specifics, but c'mon.

 

You mean the team with 46(!) titles is the worst? You gotta be under 25. Get a clue, Faker fan. That team is loaded with HOFers and champions like mad!

 

Damn, this thread is getting a lot of guest views. Join the site, fools.

 

Kerr has a team with 6(!) players with ZERO titles. At least he was smart enough to pick the greatest champion of them all: Bill Russell. It's a complete team, position-wise, but he needs at least one more center better than Howard. Howard would've been dominated by most all the other centers on the list. Smith loses too much with himself (his own biggest fan) and Hawkins.

 

I love Webber's team, too, but it is light on titles (8, I believe). They would score a ton of points, but there's some questions about defense and rebounding among those forwards. Wilt couldn't do it all.

 

Titles really doesn't have much to do with how good an individual player is.

 

I know a lot of you guys think any team with Jordan or Kobe on it is instantly the best, but Miller's team has one true forward, Barkley, and Kerr was a one-trick pony. He was great at it, but an all-time team needs guys with more versatility. Now trade Kerr or 'Zo for Duncan, and you really have something. And Kerr needs a better center than Howard, someone who won't sit in a cast most of the time like Hill, and a guy who won't fizzle in the finals like Nowitzki did. And he did.

 

Your analysis stings me deeply because it's so reasoned and nuanced. If only we could assemble a team with Robert Horry, Steve Kerr, Will Perdue, Horace Grant, Jud Buechler, Derek Fisher, Ron Harper, Kurt Rambis, John Salley and Bill Cartwright.

That's 44 (!) titles, I believe. That would truly be fearsome.

But I do love my Fakers. You got me there.

 

1. webber
2. kerr
3. miller

 

Gotta get Adam Morrison in their somewhere.

 

I think the guys on the above team had a tiny bit more to do with their titles than the guys on your team. If you're judging role players by titles, sure, that's dumb. But if similarly skilled players are compared, and one has a title and the other doesn't, it should mean something.

 

Sure, the players McHale selected had a lot more to do with their titles than the ones I mentioned. I wasn't honestly suggesting they were the same. But once you start evaluating by titles (and that is all exile103 did...he didn't involve any other reasoning except a slight nod to balancing by position), I think you get onto a slippery slope, because now you're heading into a completely subjective realm of "winner-ness" quality.

How can you argue with someone who thinks, say, Robert Horry was better than Charles Barkley because Horry won a ton of titles and Barkley won none except to say "Well, that's just dumb"? Everyone can hold their own opinion about what "winning" means outside of numbers but it's not really where I, personally, want to go with discussion because it starts to end up like "Is punk or hip-hop better?" Every opinion is valid, but I also find it largely unproductive because there's no debate. There's no debating that exile103 believes winning is the only thing among famous players, because his opinion is his opinion. He's perfectly allowed to hold it, but there's not much I can argue about what his opinion is.

I'm not saying that I should define how sports discussions should go, I'm just saying that my own opinion is that there's not much discussion available in the kind of stand exile103 was taking.

That's definitely the majority opinion, but not one I hold. I think titles are team accomplishments, not individual ones. I don't think Barkley failed to win one because he lacked a certain important quality. I think he just happened to not be on the best total team in any particular year.

I don't think Olajuwon wins any titles if Jordan hadn't retired, and I don't think he'd have been a worse player if that had happened. I don't Garnett became a better player when he went to Boston, I think he simply had a better team around him.

So I really don't give players championship credit. I don't begrudge those that do, but I don't think winning a title tells us anything more about the individual than his numerical contributions. I'd be more willing to give credit for aesthetics, since pro sports is about the pleasure of watching athletes perform, than I would for championships.

As an aside, I don't think McHale's team was "similarly talented players." He certainly has some top-tier great ones, but he also has weaker picks...players like Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Pierce, Archibald and Parish...while all good-to-great, weren't on the level of most of the other picks in that draft (outside of silly picks like Kenny Smith and Steve Kerr), IMO.

 

AI went #1? hahahahahahhahaha