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.