All-Time ACC MBB Team

[-jk]

...

You may believe or not believe Dale Brown, but his assertion was that he tracked all the shots so the rest of your arguments regarding percentages don’t seem relevant.

I won't address the rest of your post, other than to say it's a solid salvo, but I was reminded of Carroll Wright's assertion that figures don't lie, but liars may figure. I think OF's statistical analysis is reasonable, and reasonably rigorous. I'll take it over an assertion by Dale Brown that he tracked all Of PP's shots and found he'd have made 13 per game. 'Cause we all know that 62.3% of all stats are made up on the spot.

-jk

[Wheat/"/"/"]

In some ways I and others [here, Olympic Fan] are talking past Wheat, and he past us. While it might seem we're all having roughly the same conversation, we're not, mostly because we cannot pin Wheat down on any actual criteria, though several have been suggested, repeatedly.
.

Wheat's actual criteria- "Put together an all time ACC "team" of ten of the best players you think can win against anyone else's team".

In a previous post I've already said... " I just chose the 10 ACC players I've seen and would like to have if i was a coach to defend against all comers".

I'm really not that hard to pin down.

Worthy was not a homer pick, as much as you'd like to paint it. He was a great college player who happened to play at UNC. I just don't think there's been another ACC player who was a tougher matchup than Worthy at SF.

Feel free to continue to disagree, which is where "subjective" enters the picture again.

[Olympic Fan]

Wheat's actual criteria- "Put together an all time ACC "team" of ten of the best players you think can win against anyone else's team".

In a previous post I've already said... " I just chose the 10 ACC players I've seen and would like to have if i was a coach to defend against all comers".

I'm really not that hard to pin down.

Worthy was not a homer pick, as much as you'd like to paint it. He was a great college player who happened to play at UNC. I just don't think there's been another ACC player who was a tougher matchup than Worthy at SF.Feel free to continue to disagree, which is where "subjective" enters the picture again.

Well, alow me to disagree with that point -- and it's not subjective -- Worthy never played SF at UNC. Never.

In 1980 as a freshman, he played PF with Joe Wolf usually at center -- O'Koren and Wood were the wings.

In 1981 as a sophomore Worthy played the post alongside Budko/Perkins (Budko would usually start, but Perkins would play the bulk of the minutes ... late in the season Budko got hurt and Perkins started). Wood was the SF (backed up by freshman Matt Doherty) and Dean rotated a backcourt of Braddock, Pepper and Black.

In 1982, UNC's lineup was remarkably stable -- Perkins and Worthy in the post, Jordan and Doherty on the wings and Black at the point.

Worthy was NEVER a small forward at UNC (the position he played so well with the Lakers).

As a PF, he was good, but hardly among the ACC's best ever -- he was a one-time first-team All-ACC, a one-time All-American ... never national POY, never ACC POY. His career averages were 14.5 ppg., 7.4 rpg. He shot a good (not great) 54 percent from the floor and a poor 65 percent from the foul line. He had 50 more turnovers than assists.

I can name a dozen ACC post players with better credentials -- more honors, better stats and comparable team accomplishments. Cnsidering that he had just one outstanding season (and one second-team All-ACC one beyond that) at UNC, my opinion is that arguing that Worthy belongs a list of the five best ACC players is blatant homerism.

Of course that's just subjective.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Well, alow me to disagree with that point -- and it's not subjective -- Worthy never played SF at UNC. Never.

In 1980 as a freshman, he played PF with Joe Wolf usually at center -- O'Koren and Wood were the wings.

In 1981 as a sophomore Worthy played the post alongside Budko/Perkins (Budko would usually start, but Perkins would play the bulk of the minutes ... late in the season Budko got hurt and Perkins started). Wood was the SF (backed up by freshman Matt Doherty) and Dean rotated a backcourt of Braddock, Pepper and Black.

In 1982, UNC's lineup was remarkably stable -- Perkins and Worthy in the post, Jordan and Doherty on the wings and Black at the point.

Worthy was NEVER a small forward at UNC (the position he played so well with the Lakers).

As a PF, he was good, but hardly among the ACC's best ever -- he was a one-time first-team All-ACC, a one-time All-American ... never national POY, never ACC POY. His career averages were 14.5 ppg., 7.4 rpg. He shot a good (not great) 54 percent from the floor and a poor 65 percent from the foul line. He had 50 more turnovers than assists.

I can name a dozen ACC post players with better credentials -- more honors, better stats and comparable team accomplishments. Cnsidering that he had just one outstanding season (and one second-team All-ACC one beyond that) at UNC, my opinion is that arguing that Worthy belongs a list of the five best ACC players is blatant homerism.

Of course that's just subjective.

And Laettner was never a center because everybody knows coach K does not define positions.

Look, I'm the coach of my team and he plays where I tell him to play or I sit him and bring in Bias.
It's my team of great ACC players that I'm theoretically putting on the floor against whoever you want to put on the floor.

When I put Worthy at SF along with Duncan and Sampson inside, and Ford/Thompson in the backcourt, my team will win against anyone you want to put out there. That's my contention.

I'm arguing best all time ACC "team", not all time best at a position, (which,btw, can never be defined), or all time most awards.

[jv001]

And Laettner was never a center because everybody knows coach K does not define positions.

Look, I'm the coach of my team and he plays where I tell him to play or I sit him and bring in Bias.
It's my team of great ACC players that I'm theoretically putting on the floor against whoever you want to put on the floor.

When I put Worthy at SF along with Duncan and Sampson inside, and Ford/Thompson in the backcourt, my team will win against anyone you want to put out there. That's my contention.

I'm arguing best all time ACC "team", not all time best at a position, (which,btw, can never be defined), or all time most awards.

worthy wouldn't even make that team if you pick it with no homerism. But unc fans have a hard time doing that. Those fans should take a page from our Jim Sumner. He was the first to mention that phil ford was the best pg ever in the ACC. Bet you never hear a unc fan say that a Duke player was the best ever at anything that's good. I would take Bobby Jones(along with Walter Davis two of my favorite players) over worthy any day of the week. Matter of fact, jamison was a better college player than worthy. GoDuke!

[superdave]

Wheat's actual criteria- "Put together an all time ACC "team" of ten of the best players you think can win against anyone else's team".

In a previous post I've already said... " I just chose the 10 ACC players I've seen and would like to have if i was a coach to defend against all comers".

I'm really not that hard to pin down.

Worthy was not a homer pick, as much as you'd like to paint it. He was a great college player who happened to play at UNC. I just don't think there's been another ACC player who was a tougher matchup than Worthy at SF.

Feel free to continue to disagree, which is where "subjective" enters the picture again.

Wheat - question on Tim Duncan. Did you give any weight to his NBA successes?

Based on the stats I found, Duncan is the all-time ACC shot blocker and 3rd in rebounds. But he only scored 2117 points and had a career record of 97-31. His best tourney finish was losing by 20 to UK in the regional final his junior year.

I think he was a great player in college, particularly on the defensive end. But I think other forwards argued here were better, including Laettner, Worthy, Hansborough (ugh), Jamison and Ferry, mostly because they had a lot more post-season success.

[JohnGalt]

My personal observation of ACC basketball dates back to the late 1950s, so I can't really talk about Shavlik, Rosenbluth, Hemric or any of the stars of the '50s. I always hate these internet threads because they are so biased towards recent years and negate the old-time guys. Other players are judged superficially.

Oly, I appreciate your insight and tremendous font of knowledge as much as anyone, but isn't this statement a bit...I don't know...self-contradictory? Since no one has seen everyone, including you (as you mentioned), is it really fair to say that anyone is biased? Everyone's concept of "old-time guys" just shifts around with their age. My dog is only 7, after all, and can barely remember the great teams of the JJ Redick era, eons ago.

I guess the only solution is drop the "All-time" idea for a "Modern Basketball" team or something a bit narrower. But then that's not as much fun.

[Bob Green]

Worthy was not a homer pick, as much as you'd like to paint it. He was a great college player who happened to play at UNC.

I agree with Wheat/"/"/". While Olympic Fan makes a very strong quantitative argument thet James Worthy does not belong on the team, my qualitative eye test memory is James Worthy was an awesome player and there is room for him on my Top 5 team. In 1982, no matter how important Jimmy Black was as the steady PG or how important it was that Michael Jordan hit the last shot, UNC doesn't beat Georgetown without James Worthy.

Where I do disagree with Wheat/"/"/" is the SF/PF situation. My opinion is we should insert players into the position they played in college. Worthy is a PF with David Thompson being the SF.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat - question on Tim Duncan. Did you give any weight to his NBA successes?

Based on the stats I found, Duncan is the all-time ACC shot blocker and 3rd in rebounds. But he only scored 2117 points and had a career record of 97-31. His best tourney finish was losing by 20 to UK in the regional final his junior year.

I think he was a great player in college, particularly on the defensive end. But I think other forwards argued here were better, including Laettner, Worthy, Hansborough (ugh), Jamison and Ferry, mostly because they had a lot more post-season success.

Maybe I did, subconsciously.
I had a hard time deciding between Laettner and Duncan in the starting line up, but I never had a doubt about having Laettner on my team.
I know how Sampson liked to float, and no way he wasn't starting, so I felt like I needed to have an anchor in the post to go with him and he was a better fit with my starters.

[gumbomoop]

I'm arguing best all time ACC "team", not all time best at a position, (which,btw, can never be defined), or all time most awards.

I intend in what follows to be moderately fair to you, Wheat. But [ignore everything before the "But"], I begin in an ever so slightly irritated mood. For I infer a tone in this tag quote of something like this: "I don't know what you guys have been talking about, but I have been talking about a real team, not some irrelevant award/accomplishment/positon thingy."

In some ways I and others [here, Olympic Fan] are talking past Wheat, and he past us. While it might seem we're all having roughly the same conversation, we're not, mostly because we cannot pin Wheat down on any actual criteria, though several have been suggested, repeatedly.

Wheat's post #84 does help me understand exactly why we're having separate conversations. I can imagine Wheat saying [and understand that I won't have to imagine for long, which is good] that he's been perfectly clear from the beginning.

But here's why, IMO, things haven't been clear: Wheat's posts are based on a different definition of "All-time All-team" than is the common understanding of that term. The common understanding is precisely what Wheat states is not his definition, that is, "not all time best at a position." So all this stuff about all-time best at positions is, if not irrelevant to Wheat, at least somewhat inconvenient.

Or perhaps it would be [moderately] fairer to Wheat's view - Wheat? - to claim that this "best-mixture-of-guys, positions-be-damned team to beat anybody you can pick" is actually a better way to think about "All-time All-teams." Fair enough, as long as we - you, too, Wheat - acknowledge that this is a debatable claim, a different conversation, necessitating a different approach and definition.

Assuming I now understand what was previously unclear, I've no idea whether this thread will morph into that different conversation. If it doesn't, it might be because it really will depend a whole lot more on subjectivity, mere opinion, some homerism. If it does, it might or might not be interesting.

And Laettner was never a center because everybody knows coach K does not define positions.

On Laettner's position - Even if we stick to the common definition, the un-Wheat, I will reluctantly concede that it's easier to fudge Laettner into PF than it is to fudge some other players into their not-position. Worthy, for example. As Olympic Fan has noted, this is not a subjective opinion.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

[QUOTE=Bob Green;581091

Where I do disagree with Wheat/"/"/" is the SF/PF situation. My opinion is we should insert players into the position they played in college. Worthy is a PF with David Thompson being the SF.[/QUOTE]

If that's the case, then I'll take...

Center-Sampson
PF- Laettner
SF-Thompson
SG-Jordan
PG-Ford

Duncan, Worthy, Bias, Reddick, Price

Say what you want about Jordan's body of work in college, but I've never seen a better 2g than the way he played the year before he left. And I'll take Reddick over Stackhouse for my bench due to his work ethic and shooting.

[superdave]

Worthy

Wheat -
Thoughts on Worthy vs. Antawn Jamison?

Worthy averaged 14.5 on 65% FGs and 7.4 boards in three years of college. He was Final Four MVP and 2nd team All-America his junior year.

Jamison averaged 19 on 58% shooting and 9.9 boards in three years of college. He was 2nd team All-America as a sophomore and 1st team as a junior, and won national player of the year as a junior. He made back to back Final Fours.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat -
Thoughts on Worthy vs. Antawn Jamison?

Worthy averaged 14.5 on 65% FGs and 7.4 boards in three years of college. He was Final Four MVP and 2nd team All-America his junior year.

Jamison averaged 19 on 58% shooting and 9.9 boards in three years of college. He was 2nd team All-America as a sophomore and 1st team as a junior, and won national player of the year as a junior. He made back to back Final Fours.

Worthy with the eye test.
I don't think Jamison could guard Worthy, but I think Worthy could do a decent job on Jamison.

[luvdahops]

Worthy with the eye test.
I don't think Jamison could guard Worthy, but I think Worthy could do a decent job on Jamison.

Agreed

Also my two cents that Worthy played on better teams - UNC went 31-11 in the ACC (73.8%), 82-18 overall (82.0%) in his time, versus 34-14 (70.8%), 83-22 (79.0%) for Jamison - in a more competitive era top-to-bottom in the ACC. His stats were also impacted by tempo differences, having played in the pre-shot clock era (and during arguably the height of the Four Corners and its various imitations around the league).

[Olympic Fan]

Wheat -
Thoughts on Worthy vs. Antawn Jamison?

Worthy averaged 14.5 on 65% FGs and 7.4 boards in three years of college. He was Final Four MVP and 2nd team All-America his junior year.

Jamison averaged 19 on 58% shooting and 9.9 boards in three years of college. He was 2nd team All-America as a sophomore and 1st team as a junior, and won national player of the year as a junior. He made back to back Final Fours.

Worthy averaged 54.1 percent from the field, not 65 percent. In his career, he was 485 of 896.

'Course, can't argue with the "eye test" ... everybody's eyes have their own tint (and, Wheat, it's easy to see how your eyes are tinted)

It's pretty obvious that you want to hijack this thread from what these guys actually accomplished in college (where Worthy doesn't come close to the all-time ACC team) to what kind of players they proved tio be in the pros -- where Worthy suddenly becomes a factor. Fair enough, but I hope everybody sees what you doing.

[superdave]

Worthy with the eye test.
I don't think Jamison could guard Worthy, but I think Worthy could do a decent job on Jamison.

Agreed

Also my two cents that Worthy played on better teams - UNC went 31-11 in the ACC (73.8%), 82-18 overall (82.0%) in his time, versus 34-14 (70.8%), 83-22 (79.0%) for Jamison - in a more competitive era top-to-bottom in the ACC. His stats were also impacted by tempo differences, having played in the pre-shot clock era (and during arguably the height of the Four Corners and its various imitations around the league).

Worthy averaged 54.1 percent from the field, not 65 percent. In his career, he was 485 of 896.

'Course, can't argue with the "eye test" ... everybody's eyes have their own tint (and, Wheat, it's easy to see how your eyes are tinted)

It's pretty obvious that you want to hijack this thread from what these guys actually accomplished in college (where Worthy doesn't come close to the all-time ACC team) to what kind of players they proved tio be in the pros -- where Worthy suddenly becomes a factor. Fair enough, but I hope everybody sees what you doing.

I agree with everyone that Worthy was better than Jamison, although the stats and individual accolades point the other way. I see it as a Worthy being on a much better, more complete team and having no need to carry the load every game. It is good to go through the motions on these comparisons though.

I think at the end of the day I'd rather have Grant Hill or Lenny Bias on my all-time team though, so I'll disagree with Wheat. I'd bump Worthy to the bench alongside Hill and Battier and start Bias. But a Final Four MVP and a title do put Worthy in the conversation, albeit behind the guys I listed above.

I mixed up Worthy's FT% (65) with his FG% (54). My bad...

[Wheat/"/"/"]

It's pretty obvious that you want to hijack this thread from what these guys actually accomplished in college (where Worthy doesn't come close to the all-time ACC team) to what kind of players they proved tio be in the pros -- where Worthy suddenly becomes a factor. Fair enough, but I hope everybody sees what you doing.

Yea, I'm a real outlaw in these parts.

[TheTrain]

Perhaps I'm off base here because I wasn't around to see Bias play, but was he actually as amazing as people seem to remember or has his early death caused people to remember him as better than he was? I've got no doubt he was good, but didn't Grant Hill, Antawn Jamison, and even Tyler Hansbrough have equally impressive college careers?

No...you have to account for the fact Bias effectively had nobody around him to helpo offensively...nobody. Teams would literally triple-team him (that is not a typo). Duke tried it and nearly lost at Cameron. By the time he was a senior, he was literally unstoppable. He could beat you in the low post, in transition and from the outside. Hill, Jamison and Hansbrough played on better teams (by far)...but none of them are in the same category as a player