After the 2000 class, this list looks like a veritable Hall-of-Fame, despite the fact that #1 is Kwame Brown.
(This was a much harder draft to analyze, and I end up compensating for that fact by using too many words, feel free to skip to the bottom, that's the important stuff)
1. Wizards - Kwame Brown -- What can I say? Hind-sight is 20-20, so I'm not gonna lambast the Wizards for a terrible move, because we don't really *know* if it was a terrible move. Some guys just don't translate well. I never saw Brown play before he got drafted, and I never had an opinion on him. I saw LBJ in high school and *knew* he was going to be a beast, but Kwame? Maybe he could've been great ... but the transition from dominating smaller guys to then getting yelled at by Michael Jordan was too much for him to handle and he broke down. But the Wiz got Caron Butler for him, so who's complaining ...
2. Bulls - Tyson Chandler -- Okay, I don't think people appreciate this guy's career arc. This is an excerpt from nbadraft.net's original analysis: "Initially, at just 225 pounds and an underdeveloped body, he will be forced to play away from the basket". Chandler was a stick, the kind of guy I hate, but after everyone realized that he had no offensive game (which is completely typical of these thin athletic prodigies), he decided to buckle down and, perhaps with the help of some excellent coaches, developed into a great defensive center. I don't remember what I thought about Chandler, but I was probably wrong. He's an example of what thin dudes *need* to do with their careers (actually, this applies to all prospects): don't listen to the hype, and learn how to defend like a mad-man, because if your offensive game doesn't develop you'll need something to fall back on, and you'll need to fall back on that something *quick* if you don't want to find yourself in the NBDL.
3. Grizzlies - Pau Gasol -- Here was the main difference between Gasol and Chandler at the time: Chandler had the athleticism to compensate for his lack of refinement. Tyson became a great defender, Gasol didn't ... but his offensive game adapted to the NBA very quickly, so he didn't have to become a great defender, and now he's found himself on a great team that can compensate for his defensive shortcomings (though I think that's one of the reasons that the Lakers won't win it all, but that's another subject). Could be qualified as an excellent pick, but Gasol was *never* going to be the best player on a Championship team, that became clear after he lost his 238th straight playoff game. We are seeing right now that his only chance is as a 2nd option. I'd rather have Chandler.
4. Bulls - Eddy Curry -- A big, giant, talented center, exactly the kind of guy you want to draft in the hopes that he develops into a Title-Chomping-Carrying-Team-On-Shoulder-Beast. He didn't. Those fears about his laziness (which always existed) turned out to be correct. But I have no problem with the Bulls taking the risk. We give credit to guys (like Ainge this past offseason) for taking risks *when they work*. Sometimes they don't, that's what gambling's all about.
5. Warriors - Jason Richardson -- Anyone think that Jason Richardson is a superstar? Anyone? Hello? I know there are fans out there who love this guy, but he just doesn't have "it". He's been surrounded by talent, at times, but I've seen no evidence whatsoever that he can provide his team with wins. On his best team (last year's Warriors), he was statistically prevalent, but he was *so quiet*. Did you even notice him in those playoff games? Davis, Barnes, Jackson ... those guys had presence, you just knew that *they* were the reason that team beat the Mavericks. Richardson is just ... a guy ... who's good at tabulating statistics. He's a role-player, but because of his numbers we convince ourselves that he's more important than he actually is. All that said, he was a big, talented 2, and there's nothing wrong with the pick.
6. Grizzlies - Shane Battier -- Alright. I have one clear memory of this draft: my unwavering man-love for Shane Battier. I hated Duke, but I loved Battier, and I wanted the Sonics to trade up to get him. Was I being dumb? Yes. But I still love Battier. He's a terrific defender and teammate, and an ideal role-player to fill out a roster. He got drafted this high because of all the media saturation around Duke at the time, he should've gone in the middle of the 1st round, where he would've been exactly what people thought he was going to be, and some team would've been very happy.
7. Nets - Eddie Griffin -- Uh ... can I say anything about him? I already feel dirty about it, even though he was a lazy creep ... oh well. He's this draft's best example of what's wrong with NBA talent evaluation. In college he was an athletic blocking machine ... then, in the NBA, like so many 6'9" post players, he became ... some guy with an undeveloped body, no offensive game, a terrible attitude, and coaches who couldn't develop him properly because their bosses wanted him to be a jersey-selling All-Star.
8. Cavaliers - DeSagana Diop -- A poor man's Tyson Chandler. I've got no problem with this pick, and I'm happy that Diop has resigned himself to his modest career.
9. Pistons - Rodney White -- Wow. Remember when the Pistons didn't know how to run a basketball team?
10. Celtics - Joe Johnson -- I think he's pretty much the same guy as Jason Richardson. I know that most of you disagree vehemently with both of those diagnoses; but the Hawks have a lot of talent, and the East stinks ... if you stuck Kobe Bryant on that team, wouldn't they be much better than a 1st-round sacrificial lamb? Joe Johnson never fit one of my bust-profiles; he's just one of those guys who knows how to accrue numbers, not win. But even if the Celtics *knew* that going in, this still wouldn't've been a terrible pick.
Okay, this draft turned up a few more themes than I expected. Diop and Chandler are both part-and-parcel. Did either deserve their lofty position in this draft? Probably not, but wouldn't you rather have them on your team than some wing who has no discernible ability to carry a team? That brings me to Johnson and Richardson, and perhaps Gasol to a lesser extent. I've made some of my thoughts clear on these two, but I think I need to crystallize this point (I've written about this before, but never with such an excellent empirical lead-in):
Statistics are not only overrated, they can be poisonous to personnel management. In Johnson and Richardson we have two guys who have shown zero predilection to be leaders of winning teams, but they're *excellent* at accumulating impressive statistics, so we reflexively believe that they're All-Stars, or even potential Superstars who are *right on the cusp* of breaking through. But they aren't. They're just 'guys'. They score points, yes, but those points could be scored by *that white sniper on the bench*, or by *that all-purpose 3 who starts because he's got a high basketball IQ*. But because ~20 of a team's points happen to be scored by a single man, we decide that he's better than everyone, and he's a leader, and he deserves ungodly amounts of money, and we just need to 'put the right pieces around him' to build a contender.
Am I attacking the Warriors and the Celtics for these picks in the 2001 Draft? No. I'm speaking about a greater problem. When a team places undue responsibility on the shoulders of a player who is not as good as his statistics indicate, they are destroying their team's chances of competing. We have to change our paradigm. We have to be able to realize that a 20+PPG scorer can be *just a role-player*.
You want a good recent example? Kevin Durant. He's going to score 25 PPG for the rest of his career, every team he's on will believe that he's their best player, and he'll never win a darn thing. Don't believe me? Let's talk in 15 years.
A differing opinion will be injected here. Pau Gasol, Shane Battier, and Joe Johnson are all quality players who continue to play well 7 years later. The 2 high school kids taken at the top required a great deal of molding into men and while there seems to be some progress with Chandler, the Brown kid suffers from short arms and small hands for a player his size. There is no denying that Griffin and Curry have failed to meet expectations, that Rodney White had a more successful college career than pro, and that Diop should not have been reviewed as the 8th best player available in any draft this decade. I would add 2 additional thoughts here: One, the jury is still out on Richardson. We notice that he has streaks of brilliance but cannot seem to play inspired for long periods of time. Sometimes, this translates into a person playing longer at an acceptable level as they "didn't burn all the hay in the field the first summer". Case in point, Robert Horry, who has had an extended career based upon knowing when to turn it on and when not to after he reached age 30. Two, comments of hating a team should be minimized in order for others to determine if you are accurately analyzing performance or injecting personal predjudice into the discussion. These remarks can inspire bitter back and forth comments which lead to nowhere. That being said, I enjoyed the great majority of your comments and hope to read more of your thoughts in the future.
Great point on statistics being overated. Michael Finley is a good example early in his career with Dallas. I recall several opposing players being critical of his numbers and his game not translating to wins. He has developed into a nice role player with the Spurs and though he doesn't put up the numbers his team is now winning.
You should hope you DO NOT remember writing this in 15 years. Your calling Durant just a "Role Player", REALLY?
Lets just look:
Avg. over 20PPG
43% shooting- which was better than T-Mac, Gilbert Arenas, Mike Finley, Robert Horry, and even your "man-loved, Shane Battier" (who you think is an eventual hall of famer). But I guess you think all these guys are just role players to huh?
87% FT- which is 14 in the league counting anyone with at least 100 attempts.
AND
Finished higher than league avg in both assists and rebounds (which means he was better than half the league in these categories)
He was better in THREE of FOUR categories in comparison to your "future hall of famer Battier"
PPG
APG
FG %
ALL IN HIS ROOKIE YEAR!!!
But he is just a role player right?
Well, thats why your writing a blog and not publishing and actual article!!!
Awesome. I totally agree on Durant, he is going to be a joe hohnson, Look at orlando in 92, thats what a top pick does to you with shaq, if durant was a team player, and he is that good, they dont get the 2nd worst record in the league, especially with 2 top 5 picks playing. for Sea/Okcity to get good, they need to dump him and their #4 pick for 2 allstars ala boston, otherwise theit in the lotto the next 5 yrs and maybe they get lucky. I see beasley heading this way also, and thats why Miami at 2 takes Mayo
25 might be high for Durant. We'll see. I'd like to see the kid put on some muscle, then make sure his game adjusts accordingly to the added weight.
In retrospect, this draft wasn't all that bad. They have surely been worse drafts in recent years. I'd say Gasol, Richardson, Johnson and this year Chandler have all developed into quality players.
Marine, he shot the damn ball more than he averaged didnt he? what the article is meaning, is a look at wade, and j richardson. Wade can get 20-30 pts on 12 shots, with ft's amd driving, Durant,Jwill,Johnson, (kobe til year) need to shoot and shoot and shoot, If Duant can learn to be a 15-18 shot a game guy, get his team involved, he can be better than a J Rich or a Joe Johnshon, but he is used to hacking the ball up 30 times a game. Since he was the main guy in HS, college, and now on a bad seattle team he is going to get habits of having to shoot shoot shoot. HE would be a good 2nd option, not a #1. in 15 years, you are correct,
Marine, if you let any rookie shoot like durant did on a bad team, they would average 20. Look at wades shots per game and he averaged 25 injured this year, and look at Durant. thats whar he needs to learn. volume shooting gets you #s, not wins.
That would be true of EVERYONE who shot less than 50%, WOULD IT NOT? If you shoot less than 50%, then you shoot more than you avg. So lets just take a look at some names that would be on that list:
LeBron James
D'Wade
Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan
Chris Paul
ALL of which are considered the best players in the league, ALL of which shot less than 50%, thus ALL of which shot more than they avg'd.
It's not just about FG% (though that's certainly a concern). Those guys on marine2001's list all contribute in myriad ways to their teams. Right now, Durant doesn't do much other than shoot. He doesn't defend, doesn't pass, doesn't have good shot selection, has no record of winning (under-achieved with UT), and he's playing out of position so he can't showcase his rebounding skills.
All of those things can be fixed. But there's one big issue here that isn't chique to address: he's so damn skinny! He says he's been eating and lifting weights for years, so maybe we can only blame genetics for this fault, but it's still a problem. This guy is 8" taller than me and I'M LITERALLY STRONGER THAN HE IS ... I'm not a gym-rat, but I could bench-press more than Durant when I was 13, I'm not exaggerating.
I won't expound too much, because I've written about this before: super-thin guys are too weak to play in the post, too slow and awkward to be effective 2's, usually too laterally slow to be good perimeter defenders (exception: Tayshaun Prince), and overall too physically limited to impose their will in the clutch.
Combine all that with the poor FG%, and you have a guy who *happens* to get points, rather than a guy who *puts* points on the board (like LBJ or Duncan). (Does that terminology make sense?)
I gotta agree with marine2001 on Kevin Durant. No matter what anyone says he put up 20 in the NBA and the guy isn't even 20 yet....and most of the 2 guards and 3's that are stars of the league can be considered volume shooters. His game will mature and his body will fill out some and he will learn to get points fron the line. As marine2001 pointed out he shoots free throws at 87%, so once he realizes he can get points that way and starts getting calls as the years pass, he will easily average close to 30 and once the sonics fill some voids, they can turn into a winner.
You're crazy dude. J-Rich not being on our team this year caused the wheels to fall off by game 70. Sure Monta developed. So did our history of being in the lottery.
The entire Bay Area nearly burnt down the Oakland Arena when draft day came.
I criticize Richardson, but that doesn't mean I think he should've been replaced by Ellis. Monta is a great player, but he falls under the au####es of what I wrote about short players in an earlier blog, guys like him are much worse for a team than Richardson, who I think would be *perfectly fine* if he weren't being paid so much.
And I think Durant *will* be fine ... *if* he fills out, and *if* he changes his game so that he gets fouled more often ... but why should we believe that either is going to happen?
RIP Eddie Griffin, as a rockets fan I was stoked on this guy after his 1st 2 years in the league, but fell apart and wasted talent due to issues off the court.
Sadly this is frequently becoming the case with many young draft picks, character seems to be more of a factor on draft day than we all thought.
I dumped the Mariners a long time ago, I've now dumped baseball because its records are now held by blatant cheaters and everyone's okay with it, and I'm now being forced to dump the Sonics. It's down to the Seahawks and the Huskies ... and maybe the Trailblazers. It's depressing. All of that lost Sports-Energy is now being diverted into hating Michael Vick, Notre Dame, and anyone else who is overrated and/or criminal (I'm looking right at you, Jimmy Clausen).
