PAC-12 NBA Team

[McKale Midwest]

Let's have some FUN!

I've been having this debate among friends, and was curious to hear the thoughts of others.

Would the best players/prospects from the PAC-12 in 2016-17 be able to beat the worst team in the NBA. (Magic, Nets, Sixers, etc.)

My starting lineup was be as followed:

PG: L. Ball
SG: M. Fultz
SF: T. Dorsey
PF:L. Markkanen
C: I. Rabb

Bench:
A. Trier
D. Brooks
J. Bell
T.J. Leaf
Alkins/Simmons

Is there anybody I'm forgetting about? If so who would you replace them with?
Do you think this team could beat an NBA team right now? Would this be the best team in the NBA, in say, 5 years?

[luteformayor2]

No

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yes, it could beat an NBA team right now. Just not very often. Ball and Fultz are big time prospects and would be a good backcourt. Lauri has a lot of potential and Rabb is serviceable. Dorsey is meh, and the bench is a bunch of guys who are borderline NBA players.

I compare to a team like Brooklyn, and I think the Nets win most of the time. Ball, Fultz and Lauri would go off now and again. Maybe they beat Brooklyn 15-25% of the time.

[gumby]

Let's have some FUN!

I've been having this debate among friends, and was curious to hear the thoughts of others.

Would the best players/prospects from the PAC-12 in 2016-17 be able to beat the worst team in the NBA. (Magic, Nets, Sixers, etc.)

My starting lineup was be as followed:

PG: L. Ball
SG: M. Fultz
SF: T. Dorsey
PF:L. Markkanen
C: I. Rabb

Bench:
A. Trier
D. Brooks
J. Bell
T.J. Leaf
Alkins/Simmons

Is there anybody I'm forgetting about? If so who would you replace them with?
Do you think this team could beat an NBA team right now? Would this be the best team in the NBA, in say, 5 years?

No. Would get crushed down low with those skinny posts. Would get lost on defense on the perimeter. Couldn't stop dribble penetration. Be too uncoordinated on offense. Would have to shoot lights out, because not getting many second chances.

There is much to learn ... it's not just roll out the ball, as some seem to think.

Better debate. Would it beat rookies from other conferences?

Or, assemble NBA teams from current players by conference. Pac-12 would be amazing on the perimeter:

Harden
Westbrook
K. Thompson
DeRozan
I. Thomas

Others:

http://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/confe ... ba-players" target="_blank

[Spaceman Spiff]

Let's have some FUN!

I've been having this debate among friends, and was curious to hear the thoughts of others.

Would the best players/prospects from the PAC-12 in 2016-17 be able to beat the worst team in the NBA. (Magic, Nets, Sixers, etc.)

My starting lineup was be as followed:

PG: L. Ball
SG: M. Fultz
SF: T. Dorsey
PF:L. Markkanen
C: I. Rabb

Bench:
A. Trier
D. Brooks
J. Bell
T.J. Leaf
Alkins/Simmons

Is there anybody I'm forgetting about? If so who would you replace them with?
Do you think this team could beat an NBA team right now? Would this be the best team in the NBA, in say, 5 years?

No. Would get crushed down low with those skinny posts. Would get lost on defense on the perimeter. Couldn't stop dribble penetration. Be too uncoordinated on offense. Would have to shoot lights out, because not getting many second chances.

There is much to learn ... it's not just roll out the ball, as some seem to think.

Better debate. Would it beat rookies from other conferences?

Or, assemble NBA teams from current players by conference. Pac-12 would be amazing on the perimeter:

Harden
Westbrook
K. Thompson
DeRozan
I. Thomas

Others:

http://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/confe ... ba-players" target="_blank

I'm not 100% the Pac team would be noncompetitive. Here's the Brooklyn Nets starting lineup from their last game:

PG-Jeremy Lin
SG-Randy Foye
SF-Caris LeVert
SF2-Rondae
C-Brook Lopez

Brook Lopez would give the Pac lineup a lot of trouble, but Ball and Fultz are a better backcourt. Just from a pure talent standpoint, Lauri is better than every Net. He might get overwhelmed by Lopez's physicality, but could hold his own on offense.

Like I said, they don't win the majority, but I think the Pac team could win one of every four or five games.

[gumby]

Let's have some FUN!

I've been having this debate among friends, and was curious to hear the thoughts of others.

Would the best players/prospects from the PAC-12 in 2016-17 be able to beat the worst team in the NBA. (Magic, Nets, Sixers, etc.)

My starting lineup was be as followed:

PG: L. Ball
SG: M. Fultz
SF: T. Dorsey
PF:L. Markkanen
C: I. Rabb

Bench:
A. Trier
D. Brooks
J. Bell
T.J. Leaf
Alkins/Simmons

Is there anybody I'm forgetting about? If so who would you replace them with?
Do you think this team could beat an NBA team right now? Would this be the best team in the NBA, in say, 5 years?

No. Would get crushed down low with those skinny posts. Would get lost on defense on the perimeter. Couldn't stop dribble penetration. Be too uncoordinated on offense. Would have to shoot lights out, because not getting many second chances.

There is much to learn ... it's not just roll out the ball, as some seem to think.

Better debate. Would it beat rookies from other conferences?

Or, assemble NBA teams from current players by conference. Pac-12 would be amazing on the perimeter:

Harden
Westbrook
K. Thompson
DeRozan
I. Thomas

Others:

http://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/confe ... ba-players" target="_blank

I'm not 100% the Pac team would be noncompetitive. Here's the Brooklyn Nets starting lineup from their last game:

PG-Jeremy Lin
SG-Randy Foye
SF-Caris LeVert
SF2-Rondae
C-Brook Lopez

Brook Lopez would give the Pac lineup a lot of trouble, but Ball and Fultz are a better backcourt. Just from a pure talent standpoint, Lauri is better than every Net. He might get overwhelmed by Lopez's physicality, but could hold his own on offense.

Like I said, they don't win the majority, but I think the Pac team could win one of every four or five games.

Last time I went to an NBA game it was Nuggets vs. Suns (Dec. 2015). Foye was the best player on the court (and ripped -- very strong) . Disagree that Ball or Fultz are already better.

A team vs. All-Stars who are all rookies = organized vs. unorganized. Vets are more confident and physically more imposing. They know things.

I suppose the Nets could lose interest every fifth game, but that's what it would take. So sure.

Don't know what "from a pure talent standpoint" means. If it doesn't translate into production now vs. sometime down the road, it wouldn't matter.

Pass the beer nuts.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Let's have some FUN!

I've been having this debate among friends, and was curious to hear the thoughts of others.

Would the best players/prospects from the PAC-12 in 2016-17 be able to beat the worst team in the NBA. (Magic, Nets, Sixers, etc.)

My starting lineup was be as followed:

PG: L. Ball
SG: M. Fultz
SF: T. Dorsey
PF:L. Markkanen
C: I. Rabb

Bench:
A. Trier
D. Brooks
J. Bell
T.J. Leaf
Alkins/Simmons

Is there anybody I'm forgetting about? If so who would you replace them with?
Do you think this team could beat an NBA team right now? Would this be the best team in the NBA, in say, 5 years?

No. Would get crushed down low with those skinny posts. Would get lost on defense on the perimeter. Couldn't stop dribble penetration. Be too uncoordinated on offense. Would have to shoot lights out, because not getting many second chances.

There is much to learn ... it's not just roll out the ball, as some seem to think.

Better debate. Would it beat rookies from other conferences?

Or, assemble NBA teams from current players by conference. Pac-12 would be amazing on the perimeter:

Harden
Westbrook
K. Thompson
DeRozan
I. Thomas

Others:

http://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/confe ... ba-players" target="_blank

I'm not 100% the Pac team would be noncompetitive. Here's the Brooklyn Nets starting lineup from their last game:

PG-Jeremy Lin
SG-Randy Foye
SF-Caris LeVert
SF2-Rondae
C-Brook Lopez

Brook Lopez would give the Pac lineup a lot of trouble, but Ball and Fultz are a better backcourt. Just from a pure talent standpoint, Lauri is better than every Net. He might get overwhelmed by Lopez's physicality, but could hold his own on offense.

Like I said, they don't win the majority, but I think the Pac team could win one of every four or five games.

Last time I went to an NBA game it was Nuggets vs. Suns (Dec. 2015). Foye was the best player on the court (and ripped -- very strong) . Disagree that Ball or Fultz are already better.

A team vs. All-Stars who are all rookies = organized vs. unorganized. Vets are more confident and physically more imposing. They know things.

I suppose the Nets could lose interest every fifth game, but that's what it would take. So sure.

Don't know what "from a pure talent standpoint" means. If it doesn't translate into production now vs. sometime down the road, it wouldn't matter.

Pass the beer nuts.

It depends on how you view the scenario. I assumed the original question had the Pac guys organized to a certain extent as an actual team.

Foye put up 5.2 ppg this year. I'll lay good money that both Ball and Fultz have at least twice the ppg in their rookie year. I'd assume Fultz is 15-20 and Ball is 10-15 ppg.

I agree being a vet is an advantage. When I talk about pure talent, Lauri has more natural talent than anyone on the Nets roster. Brook Lopez is the best player, and his ceiling is 20-7 per game. I can see Lauri doing better than that. Similarly, I think Fultz and Ball have significantly higher talent ceilings than any Net.

The thing with youth is that the talent doesn't express itself as consistently as it does with a vet. Talented rookies can kill the opposition one game and their own team the next. That's why I think they win a few games. When Fultz, Ball and Lauri have a strong game, they're better than the Nets top three by a decent margin. With the youth, I doubt that happens a ton.

[gumby]

And I assumed the games would be played before ceilings are reached. So we're screwed.

You didn't pass the beer nuts.